| Author |
Message |
measekite
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 6:14 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Shooter wrote:
| Quote: | It's bad enough knowing this Troll is allowed to use this newsgroup but
quite unacceptable when he alters copykat in what others have written. You
are way of beam when you say occasional troll baiting, this guy is way out
of order, so if you are lookin for exciting perhaps you should stay with
alt.erotica.hamster or if you ever have a printer problem see your article
taken over by this hardon.
"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:ch44m1l14urvd2c6vc23jsugm05p3ge6i6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:54:19 +0000 (UTC), "Shooter"
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It was my impression that you advised others not to post or reply to this
person, so why have you had a change of heart.
If there isn't any occasional troll baiting, this NG would be about as
exciting as alt.erotica.hamster
Someone got to start a flame war with a resident troll. :) I admit
I've fed that troll a few times, he is fun when you tease him. Like
dangling a piece of string in front of a cat.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
hooter wrote:
| Quote: | Well Mr. Shagnasty, with a handle like yours what else can one say. I also
see you alter copykat. you talk of freedom do you really know what the
meaning is, it goes both ways. BTW do you know what [SHIT] is used for,
obviously not.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F36D75.12541428102005@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
In article <djtfeh$5tq$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"Shooter" <photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It's bad enough knowing this Troll is allowed to use this newsgroup
"is allowed to use this newsgroup"?
Whatever happened to freedom?
No one "allows" anyone else to use this newsgroup. It's a public park.
What would you have--a gatekeeper making decisions on who can and can't
use this newsgroup?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Frank wrote:
| Quote: | irwell wrote:
truths in what he says. Clogged printheads are only part of the
problem, deteriotation of print quality is a very real possibility
even with some of the better second source suppliers.
Using the OEM cartrdiges and OEM paper is the only sure way
of obtaining consistent quality color prints.
That is simply not true!
|
IT CERTAINLY IS. FRANKIE CRANKIE DA COCKROACH IS FULL OF SHIT. HE IS
AN IDIOT AND HE IS A FUCKING CHURCHIE BASTARD.
| Quote: |
This has just been brought home to me this week as I took
delivery of a Pixma ip6600d, previously I had been using the Canon
s820 with Carrotink cartridges, and off the
shelf glossy photo paper.
The supplied sample Canon Photo pro paper has churned out
prints that are superbly done.
Well dud...do you think it has anything to do with the fact that the
ip6600d is simply a better newer photo printer than your old s820?
Frank
|
YOU ARE REALLY DUMBER THAN SHIT. I HEAR YOUR WIFE IS WALKING DOWN THE
STREET WITH A MATRESS ON HER BACK YELLING OUT "CURB SERVICE"
HA AH HA HA HA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
irwell wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:33:52 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net
wrote:
Knightcrawler wrote:
I buy a Canon IP4000 for $50 after rebates. I have the option to refill or
use OEM.
The carts cost $12 each, I go through 4 black pigment carts and 8 carts of
each color. So 4 x $12 = $48 and 4 x $12 x 8 = $384
$384 + $48 = $432 of Canon OEM.
The Refill kit cost me $35 with shipping so: $432 - $35 = $397
So I have save almost $400 that is more then enough to buy another printer
or maybe a Athlon 64 3800 x2 !!!!!!!
Don't waste your time on Measekite. No matter if you saved, say, the
exaggerated amount of $1,000,000 using a refill kit, he would still sing
you the same tired song: "BUT IT'LL CLOG YOUR PRINTHEAD" (ignoring the
fact that you're $999,900 ahead in the deal and ignoring the proven fact
that your risk of clogging is mostly based on how often you use your
printer and not the brand you use).
-Taliesyn
Whilst Measekit does go overboard on occassion there are some
truths in what he says.
ABSOLUTELY |
| Quote: | Clogged printheads are only part of the
problem, deteriotation of print quality is a very real possibility
even with some of the better second source suppliers.
FORGOT ABOUT THAT POINT. |
| Quote: | Using the OEM cartrdiges and OEM paper is the only sure way
of obtaining consistent quality color prints.
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BUT THE FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCHIES WILL NOT ACCEPT THAT. |
| Quote: | This has just been brought home to me this week as I took
delivery of a Pixma ip6600d, previously I had been using
the Canon s820 with Carrotink cartridges, and off the
shelf glossy photo paper.
The supplied sample Canon Photo pro paper has churned out
prints that are superbly done.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Taliesyn wrote:
| Quote: | Knightcrawler wrote:
I buy a Canon IP4000 for $50 after rebates. I have the option to
refill or use OEM.
The carts cost $12 each, I go through 4 black pigment carts and 8
carts of each color. So 4 x $12 = $48 and 4 x $12 x 8 = $384
$384 + $48 = $432 of Canon OEM.
The Refill kit cost me $35 with shipping so: $432 - $35 = $397
So I have save almost $400 that is more then enough to buy another
printer or maybe a Athlon 64 3800 x2 !!!!!!!
Don't waste your time on refilling. No matter if you saved, say, the
exaggerated amount of $1,000,000 using a refill kit, he would still sing
you the same tired song: "BUT IT'LL CLOG YOUR PRINTHEAD" (ignoring the
fact that you're $999,900 ahead in the deal and ignoring the proven fact
that your risk of clogging is mostly based on how often you use your
printer and not the brand you use).
-Taliho |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
measekite wrote:
| Quote: |
hooter wrote:
It's bad enough knowing this Troll is allowed to use this newsgroup but
quite unacceptable when he alters copykat in what others have
written. You
are way of beam when you say occasional troll baiting, this guy is
way out
of order, so if you are lookin for exciting perhaps you should stay with
alt.erotica.hamster or if you ever have a printer problem see your
article
taken over by this hardon.
"Impmon" <impmon@digi.mon> wrote in message
news:ch44m1l14urvd2c6vc23jsugm05p3ge6i6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:54:19 +0000 (UTC), "Shooter"
photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It was my impression that you advised others not to post or reply
to this
person, so why have you had a change of heart.
If there isn't any occasional troll baiting, this NG would be about as
exciting as alt.erotica.hamster
Someone got to start a flame war with a resident troll. :) I admit
I've fed that troll a few times, he is fun when you tease him. Like
dangling a piece of string in front of a cat.
--
When you hear the toilet flush, and hear the words "uh oh", it's
already
too late. - by anonymous Mother in Austin, TX
To reply, replace digi.mon with phreaker.net
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Knightcrawler wrote:
| Quote: | 600 ml from Alotofkrap.com for $34.60 shipped. :-)
"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130477808.819905.88940@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
The Refill kit cost me $35 with shipping so: $432 - $35 = $397
I tried this before. Didn't work... he refuses to admit there
is a no savings even though people like my self and others have already
used enough ink without clogging to justify the purchace of a new head
or a new printer without loss.
Where are you getting your refill kit from? I spent more for mine and
got less ink.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
irwell wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:23:33 -0700, Frank <fb@notspam.com> wrote:
irwell wrote:
truths in what he says. Clogged printheads are only part of the
problem, deteriotation of print quality is a very real possibility
even with some of the better second source suppliers.
Using the OEM cartrdiges and OEM paper is the only sure way
of obtaining consistent quality color prints.
That is simply not true!
*It was for me, the trouble with using other supplies is hitting on
the right combination, in other words, you have to kiss a lot
of toads before you find the prince. Carrot ink cartridges seemed Ok
for while but then the quality fell off.*
|
*DO YOU HEAR THAT FRANKIE CRANKIE*
| Quote: | This has just been brought home to me this week as I took
delivery of a Pixma ip6600d, previously I had been using
the Canon s820 with Carrotink cartridges, and off the
shelf glossy photo paper.
The supplied sample Canon Photo pro paper has churned out
prints that are superbly done.
Well dud(?)No need for the insult, try to keep the debate on an adult level.
...do you think it has anything to do with the fact that the
ip6600d is simply a better newer photo printer than your old s820?
Frank
Off course it is, but the old S820 printed pretty good pics when new
using the OEM inks and paper. Trying to save a few cents by going the
secondary source gave mixed results, some were good, actually won a
couple of prizes at the local fair (not the acme of the photo world
for sure but the quality wasn't bad), but it fell off pretty rapidly.
Did all the cleaning etc., as recommended.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Taliesyn wrote:
| Quote: | irwell wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 08:33:52 -0400, Taliesyn <taliesyn4@netscape.net
wrote:
Knightcrawler wrote:
I buy a Canon IP4000 for $50 after rebates. I have the option to
refill or use OEM.
The carts cost $12 each, I go through 4 black pigment carts and 8
carts of each color. So 4 x $12 = $48 and 4 x $12 x 8 = $384
$384 + $48 = $432 of Canon OEM.
The Refill kit cost me $35 with shipping so: $432 - $35 = $397
So I have save almost $400 that is more then enough to buy another
printer or maybe a Athlon 64 3800 x2 !!!!!!!
Don't waste your time on Measekite. No matter if you saved, say, the
exaggerated amount of $1,000,000 using a refill kit, he would still
sing
you the same tired song: "BUT IT'LL CLOG YOUR PRINTHEAD" (ignoring the
fact that you're $999,900 ahead in the deal and ignoring the proven
fact
that your risk of clogging is mostly based on how often you use your
printer and not the brand you use).
-Taliesyn
Whilst Measekit does go overboard on occassion there are some
truths in what he says. Clogged printheads are only part of the
problem, deteriotation of print quality is a very real possibility
even with some of the better second source suppliers.
Using the OEM cartrdiges and OEM paper is the only sure way
of obtaining consistent quality color prints.
This has just been brought home to me this week as I took
delivery of a Pixma ip6600d, previously I had been using the Canon
s820 with Carrotink cartridges, and off the
shelf glossy photo paper. The supplied sample Canon Photo pro paper
has churned out
prints that are superbly done.
Your use of "off the shelf" photo paper might actually be the difference
in this case.
|
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT HIGH SCHOOL KID
| Quote: | Some papers are slightly better, some much worse than
Canon Photo Paper Pro. For example, my dollar store paper (yes, 20 4x6
sheets for $1.00) actually gives a better printed result than Canon's
paper at the same settings.
|
DOUBT THAT
| Quote: | The only *drawback *to the dollar store paper is that a full 24hrs is
recommended for drying. It's quite *fragile to the touch* and is
destroyed by water droplet. But printouts are stunning.
Once framed they're not a problem.
-Taliesyn |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
drc023 wrote:
| Quote: | I agree that using the right combination of ink and paper does make a
difference. In your case using Canon OEM probably does make more sense than
using Carrot ink cartridges since they cost nearly as much as Canon tanks.
They have a decent track record, but nothing to write home about. You can
obtain far better results at a drastically lower price using quality bulk
ink to refill empty cartridges.
WHAT A MESSY WASTE OF TIME AND A PAIN IN THE ASS |
| Quote: | Refilling empty BCI-3/6 tanks is so easy
that anyone with normal functioning abilities can refill an entire set in
less than five minutes without any mess whatsoever. Ink such as Formulabs,
Hobbicolors, MIS, Image Specialists have all been shown to have results
comparable to that of Canon OEM ink.
|
THEY MAY ALL BE THE SAME SHIT SINCE THE VENDOR WHORES WILL NOT TELL YOU
WHAT YOU ARE BUYING.
| Quote: | On some papers the results may be
superior. Paper makes a huge difference. Even the troll proclaims that
Costco Kirkland paper (Ilford) is outstanding.
WHEN USING CANON OEM INK |
| Quote: | Ilford, Red River, Office
Depot Professional, Konica, some of the Jet Print etc... are excellent
papers. I've also had a few s820's (still do) and they are decent printers.
I also have a couple of iP3000's, an iP4000 and an i950 and all of them are
better than the s820.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Knightcrawler
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:41 pm Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
Well Elmo if someone came to the park and started yelling four letter words
and harrassing people the police would be called and I bet that person would
be asked to leave the park.
Also Newsgroup are in fact free and open but the servers they reside on are
owned by someone and they do have terms of service. Server owners can ban
posters if they are abusive and break the terms of service.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-F36D75.12541428102005@nntp3.usenetserver.com...
| Quote: | In article <djtfeh$5tq$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
"Shooter" <photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It's bad enough knowing this Troll is allowed to use this newsgroup
"is allowed to use this newsgroup"?
Whatever happened to freedom?
No one "allows" anyone else to use this newsgroup. It's a public park.
What would you have--a gatekeeper making decisions on who can and can't
use this newsgroup?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zakezuke
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:03 pm Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
| Quote: | Some papers are slightly better, some much worse than
Canon Photo Paper Pro. For example, my dollar store paper (yes, 20 4x6
sheets for $1.00) actually gives a better printed result than Canon's
paper at the same settings.
doubt that
|
I don't. Lately i've been seeing Hammermill sticky paper for $2.00 for
20 4x6 at biglots, and the same shop carries Illford papers as well.
Given that Kirkland Photo Paper is 17c/sheet or so it is clearly
possible to make a buck off photo paper @ $1.00 for 20 4x6s. And I can
also believe that Taliesyn likes it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Taliesyn
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
zakezuke wrote:
| Quote: | Some papers are slightly better, some much worse than
Canon Photo Paper Pro. For example, my dollar store paper (yes, 20 4x6
sheets for $1.00) actually gives a better printed result than Canon's
paper at the same settings.
doubt that
I don't. Lately i've been seeing Hammermill sticky paper for $2.00 for
20 4x6 at biglots, and the same shop carries Illford papers as well.
Given that Kirkland Photo Paper is 17c/sheet or so it is clearly
possible to make a buck off photo paper @ $1.00 for 20 4x6s. And I can
also believe that Taliesyn likes it better.
|
And I proved it by even using Canon's own inks on this paper in a side
by side test with Photo Paper Pro. The Canon paper left a kind of foggy
haze over the photo, the dollar store paper didn't. This can ONLY BE
SEEN (noticed) in side by side comparisons. You will not realize it's
there until you compared the two in good lighting and noticed one is
clearer, and it's NOT the Canon one. Like I said the only drawback is
this paper's poor handing/drying characteristics. Because of this I
generally only use it for practice prints, preferring the dry-out-of-the
-printer Kirkland paper. Cost per sheet is about 6 cents for the dollar
store paper, 7 cents for Kirkland, and your first born for Canon Photo
Paper Pro.
-Taliesyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zakezuke
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 5:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
| Quote: | Like I said the only drawback is this paper's poor handing/drying characteristics.
|
Yes, and the kirkland paper is somewhat waterfast. I've only done one
test of this and there was a bit of bleeding running a print under
water but this could have been in part to it not being 100% dry. The
Canon PR-101 paper on the other hand I couldn't notice any bleeding,
but in all fairness it's been sitting on the sill since late june I
believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
measekite
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:31 pm Post subject:
Re: Hey Measekite let's do some math |
|
|
zakezuke the lunatic wrote:
| Quote: | Some papers are slightly better, some much worse than
Canon Photo Paper Pro. For example, my dollar store paper (yes, 20 4x6
sheets for $1.00) actually gives a better printed result than Canon's
paper at the same settings.
doubt that
I don't. Lately i've been seeing Hammermill sticky paper for $2.00 for
20 4x6 at biglots, and the same shop carries Illford papers as well.
Given that Kirkland Photo Paper is 17c/sheet or so it is clearly
possible to make a buck off photo paper @ $1.00 for 20 4x6s. And I can
also believe that Taliesyn likes it better.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in