- Location
- Bucks Co. P.A.
3 Oaks
- Thread starter Sawdust
- Start date
- Location
- Bucks Co. P.A.
Not that often you take the rest of the tree out and leave the bottom limb on for your last one. Wish I had some video. Joey was playing jump rope with one of the limbs as it came off. He was definately having fun. Shaking the tree like a mad ape. That tree was dead for a long time and still had plenty of strong wood in the core.
Attachments
- Location
- Bucks Co. P.A.
Last cut. The butt came back and broke one RR tie. They had more in the back so no worries.
I had 2 more trees to deadwood and install 2 cables to finish job. These 3 oaks took less than 1 and a half days.
We lost about 2 1/2 hours the first day due to some good down pours(rain) in the morning. Then got 1/2 day in the 2nd day also due to rain, but the 3 oaks were down, all is good. Joey and Teti climbed and Mike G. and I ran the ground. Sometimes I forget what it's like on the ground. I do feel much better off the ground. When you hire in the big guns, someone has to clean up the bodies. It's always a good day working with a crew like that.
Later
I had 2 more trees to deadwood and install 2 cables to finish job. These 3 oaks took less than 1 and a half days.
We lost about 2 1/2 hours the first day due to some good down pours(rain) in the morning. Then got 1/2 day in the 2nd day also due to rain, but the 3 oaks were down, all is good. Joey and Teti climbed and Mike G. and I ran the ground. Sometimes I forget what it's like on the ground. I do feel much better off the ground. When you hire in the big guns, someone has to clean up the bodies. It's always a good day working with a crew like that.
Later
Attachments
[ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
/forum/images/graemlins/rotflmao.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
/forum/images/graemlins/rotflmao.gif
- Location
- PA
Nice work.
How far did Teti swing back after he made the cut? Looks like about 6-8 ft judging from the pics.
Mike
How far did Teti swing back after he made the cut? Looks like about 6-8 ft judging from the pics.
Mike
- Location
- Bucks Co. P.A.
Less than 6. He did inch down a bit to cut it free. There was a couple a pressure points in the top of the tree, so cutting it there was just the best way to do it. He still lowered out all branches upto the pressure points.
I just think it's a great shot too.
I just think it's a great shot too.
- Location
- Watchung, NJ
pics are too small....make 'em bigger
The pics are low quality likely because they were made bigger. As it is they're too big dimensionally anyway (who here has a screen with 1200 pixels in the vertical dimension? raise your hand). And 1/2 a megabyte per image is just too much regardless the dimensions.
But you were just pulling my chain, right?
But you were just pulling my chain, right?
Lumberjack
Branched out member
I use 1024x768
I have a 15" monitor on this computer
I maximize my windows
I enjoy using Windows
I enjoy using IE
I have a maximum DL speed of 72kbs on a straight download, up to mid 500kbs on www.toast.net/performance
I dont like having to click leventy dozen pics
I do like embeded pics, assuming they dont stretch my page
I dont have a problem with anyone's pics with regards to size or quality.
I dont know Glens DL speed, but if its maxed at 56k, I am under 50% faster.
I know that if it stretches the page all I have to do is A slide over and read the posts without the avatars or increase my screen resolution.
I know my connection speed is on the slow side of the spectrum
I do not want to hold back others enjoyment because I have to wait a couple extra seconds per picture.
I think complaining about that is trying to reduce everyone to the lowest common demoniator, a typical thing for the government regulations, something I try to avoid.
I think there is nothing inherently evil or wrong in large high quality pictures.
I think that with the proper aplication of common sense I realized that since others have faster connections, I will choose not to bicker about large pictures as I find that I enjoy them myself.
I understand that some, for whatever reason have a computer that is less capable than mine, however they are in the minority so I will serve the minority whos connection speeds are faster than mine, pleasing more, displeasing less.
I know that regardless of connection speed the information will (other variables aside) get there, eventually.
I think some patience from those that are on the lower connection speed scale should have patience and not try to hold back the whole board to our caveman connection speeds.
I know that because of where I live I have the fastest internet connection avaiable, and it didnt come cheap.
I think that a dialuppers argument is while indeed founded, largely unimportant. Realizing he is in the minority (such as myself) he should be enough of a gentleman to take some discomfort for the better good.
I think it is high time for me to go to work!
I have a 15" monitor on this computer
I maximize my windows
I enjoy using Windows
I enjoy using IE
I have a maximum DL speed of 72kbs on a straight download, up to mid 500kbs on www.toast.net/performance
I dont like having to click leventy dozen pics
I do like embeded pics, assuming they dont stretch my page
I dont have a problem with anyone's pics with regards to size or quality.
I dont know Glens DL speed, but if its maxed at 56k, I am under 50% faster.
I know that if it stretches the page all I have to do is A slide over and read the posts without the avatars or increase my screen resolution.
I know my connection speed is on the slow side of the spectrum
I do not want to hold back others enjoyment because I have to wait a couple extra seconds per picture.
I think complaining about that is trying to reduce everyone to the lowest common demoniator, a typical thing for the government regulations, something I try to avoid.
I think there is nothing inherently evil or wrong in large high quality pictures.
I think that with the proper aplication of common sense I realized that since others have faster connections, I will choose not to bicker about large pictures as I find that I enjoy them myself.
I understand that some, for whatever reason have a computer that is less capable than mine, however they are in the minority so I will serve the minority whos connection speeds are faster than mine, pleasing more, displeasing less.
I know that regardless of connection speed the information will (other variables aside) get there, eventually.
I think some patience from those that are on the lower connection speed scale should have patience and not try to hold back the whole board to our caveman connection speeds.
I know that because of where I live I have the fastest internet connection avaiable, and it didnt come cheap.
I think that a dialuppers argument is while indeed founded, largely unimportant. Realizing he is in the minority (such as myself) he should be enough of a gentleman to take some discomfort for the better good.
I think it is high time for me to go to work!
- Location
- Watchung, NJ
/forum/images/graemlins/bigcry.gif
Steve Connally
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Suffolk, Virginia
[ QUOTE ]
Ok i'll try to go in order. This is Teti on the first tree.
He trimmed a couple of limbs off, then tied off the top. We had 2 ropes on the trunk and one on the top, 2 winches , 1 porto. Teti had 2 on himself.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you supported the top while lowering the trunk?
Ok i'll try to go in order. This is Teti on the first tree.
He trimmed a couple of limbs off, then tied off the top. We had 2 ropes on the trunk and one on the top, 2 winches , 1 porto. Teti had 2 on himself.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you supported the top while lowering the trunk?
- Location
- Bucks Co. P.A.
That is correct, 2 ropes on the trunk, 1 tied off to the top.
Man I'm getting more comments on pic size than the job. Usually I get more response than that. I'll have to come up with something better to post then....
Man I'm getting more comments on pic size than the job. Usually I get more response than that. I'll have to come up with something better to post then....
(sorry about that, "Sawdust"; the attachment's for you -- wade through to the second-to-last paragraph below for explanation)
I use 1024x768
I have a 15" monitor on this computer
Ditto for me on those two points, at least on the laptop. It's 1152x864 on the 17" tube. I understand some larger-dimension panels are getting pretty cheap anymore though.
I maximize my windows
The only windows I ever have maximized are the ones displaying an image that's larger than the display size or the fairly rare text-comparison output if it has objectionably long lines. I can't imagine any other scenario where that would make sense; lines of text can get too long causing reading difficulty by making scanning back to the beginning of the next line a hit-or-miss proposition. Beside that, it's convenient to select any one of the other windows open at the time by just clicking on it, or to position it such that its program output can be monitored in the background. If my display were limited to 800x600 then I guess I would have my browser, at least, go full-screen. But I haven't used a screen that small in probably a decade.
I enjoy using Windows
I enjoy using IE
If both of those statements are honest and result from informed and adequate comparison with other current environments, then more power to you and good luck! If they are merely results of becoming even just somewhat accustomed to using what came installed on the computer then "good luck!" even more, and I submit that there are other operating environments which are very much more stable, secure, capable, not to mention wringing better performance out of the same hardware; and most of them free of charge and most can also be tried without altering the present setup whatsoever.
You are running with an account having less than full administrative privileges, aren't you? I understand it can be quite a bit of work to enable a typical Windows setup to "work" well for everyday use that way but it's absolutely imperative for the sake of safety, especially when networked. It may not make as much difference if you're the only user of the computer, but if something nasty should happen it would really be a shame to take the whole OS installation out from under other users too. Chances are (and they are, based on your stated preference) that when it happens you'll hose your own private data no matter where/what you're using, but when running as "admin" you place the entire system at risk. I know I'd hate to hose someone else's personal data almost as much as I'd hate to have them hose mine. To avoid it, don't do mundane things as "admin", a mode of general operation suitable only for single-user non-connected computing.
I have a maximum DL speed of 72kbs on a straight download, up to mid 500kbs on www.toast.net/performance
Ha!ha! I get "14898 Kb" on the text portion if their mechanism for reporting is to be believed. In fact, however, it was a solid 11KB (88Kb) thanks to modem compression mechanisms. Performance on text would be much better if they gzip-compressed it on the way out of the server. It would then appear to be arriving at the same 4.5KB/s as compressed image files, but after local expansion it would yield much higher throughput.
I dont like having to click leventy dozen pics
I do like embeded pics, assuming they dont stretch my page
I'd much rather be able to "opt in" to each and every attachment for a couple of reasons. First being that I might not want to see/wait for them. Second but foremost being that I have the browser set up to pass non-embedded images off for display to an external program which can manipulate them (which is often necessary for best appreciation) in every way imaginable. Thus links get my vote.
Probably not so much with this message board software, dependent on the license terms, but it would generally be not too much trouble to create a configuration mechanism for user-optionally embedding either the attachments (if applicable) or links to them within the posts.
If you'd be willing to install "privoxy" I would gladly provide you with a filter rule which would embed each attachment into its post so you wouldn't have to click them; all leventy dozen of them.
I dont have a problem with anyone's pics with regards to size or quality.
I take that to mean you think I do have problems with them. Quite the contrary. I only endeavor to assist in making things better for everyone involved here when I see areas which can use some improvement; where the images have problems with themselves. Isn't that what we're all here for? Comradeship and helping each other out? That's why I'm here. How about you?
I dont know Glens DL speed, but if its maxed at 56k, I am under 50% faster.
Speed is really composed of two parts: throughput and latency (I know, Cary, but you know what I mean). High throughput with low latency is the best combination and low throughput with high latency is the worst, though high throughput with high latency might give it a run for the "losing" trophy because it's so maddening to see the potential but not be able to consistently realize it. Your typical cable or DSL connection would fall in the first category, your typical dial-up would fall in the second, and something like a satellite connection would be encompassed by the last.
I'd love to have a connection with low latency even if the throughput was no more than I presently achieve (I get 106 ms best round-trip time to the first device other side of the phone just now, and that sets the stage for everything; every request packet and every received packet acknowledgment). It sounds like you have a low-latency connection; congratulations. What do you get for the first jump out of your house/office when you enter "tracert www.treebuzz.com" in a "cmd" window?
I know that if it stretches the page all I have to do is A slide over and read the posts without the avatars or increase my screen resolution.
You're not using an LCD panel at less than its native resolution are you? At more than? If a tube, are you running it at less than its maximum effective capacity? Why?
So long as the text wraps before the far side of the window it's not that big a deal to have to use the bottom scroll bar once per page. When the text wraps beyond the side of the window, however, it's even worse than trying to read a PDF, say, which has two columns that are taller than the viewing portion of the window, or the typical-of-late email reply which quotes everything below the current information. Constantly having to relocate the content within the viewing window is quite tedious at best. Expanding the window to full screen-width in order to alleviate an "active" side-scroll situation is hardly a solution because the extra difficulty of scanning back to the start of the next line, as previously mentioned.
I know my connection speed is on the slow side of the spectrum
I do not want to hold back others enjoyment because I have to wait a couple extra seconds per picture.
Nor do I. If one person invests a few seconds at the start of the process, however, and can thereby save every other person those or more seconds (or minutes!), why is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing to ask them to do so? It's not! In fact, if everyone took the time to be considerate of everyone else in this way everybody's enjoyment would be much fuller.
I think complaining about that is trying to reduce everyone to the lowest common demoniator, a typical thing for the government regulations, something I try to avoid.
Again, not so much the lowest common denominator. Rather, highest common consideration for others.
Incidentally, the "governmental regulations" statement was largely responsible for my addressing this post! Legislated "goodness" can't hardly get lower on my list of things to like; it's already bouncing off the bottom.
I think there is nothing inherently evil or wrong in large high quality pictures.
Absolutely. When one is printing, archiving, or manipulating them, the larger and higher-quality the better! If all one is doing is viewing them on-screen as if they were so many snap-shots, there is definitely a line which marks the limit of reasonableness; especially when they're being shared with others. There's absolutely no reason to transfer more data than necessary for the task at hand. Apart from handheld devices, it would be a relatively safe assumption that a screen size of at least 1024x768 is going to be encountered anymore. So there's no reason to be attaching images for viewing that are wider or taller than those dimensions! Whenever such a one is being viewed, it's either being shrunk for display or it must be panned. Either way it's a waste.
If there's some particular fine detail which needs to be preserved, then don't shrink the entire image but instead crop out the part and share it in its full detailed glory. Don't just send the whole enchilada and place the burden on everyone else. This site has a higher proportion of technically-capable users than most such sites I've seen; let's show that to the world!
I think that with the proper aplication of common sense I realized that since others have faster connections, I will choose not to bicker about large pictures as I find that I enjoy them myself.
I understand that some, for whatever reason have a computer that is less capable than mine, however they are in the minority so I will serve the minority whos connection speeds are faster than mine, pleasing more, displeasing less.
Those were fine expressions of fine qualities.
I'd be inclined to consider the majority to have less-capable computing experiences, even when the hardware/connections are superior. The vast robotic quantity of spam and attempts to break in to my computers attests to it.
I know that regardless of connection speed the information will (other variables aside) get there, eventually.
I think some patience from those that are on the lower connection speed scale should have patience and not try to hold back the whole board to our caveman connection speeds.
Maybe, maybe not. Many of the image attachments here (though decidedly a minority) never make it all the way to my side of the modem. I occasionally don't have the time to sit and wait several minutes with the connection totally tied up for some of them. It would maybe be different if it didn't prevent me from other 'net interaction in the meantime. And again, it's not just about connection speeds. It's about end use of the images. Printing and/or archiving should be done with JPEG quality factor as high as is practical. Sharing with others for snapshot-type viewing on a computer screen should rarely be above a quality factor of 75 and definitely no larger in either dimension than the typical viewing screen.
I know that because of where I live I have the fastest internet connection avaiable, and it didnt come cheap.
I think that a dialuppers argument is while indeed founded, largely unimportant. Realizing he is in the minority (such as myself) he should be enough of a gentleman to take some discomfort for the better good.
The "he" being me, right? Those on dial-up connection are definitely in the minority. More so in Canada from what I understand, but here in the U.S. the last figure I'm aware of is just barely less than 50%. Hardly such a disparity that "we" should all pull off onto the shoulder and let everyone else use both lanes, so to speak!
I really hadn't intended to spend much more time here on this sort of topic. At least for a while. I understand it's not the main topic of discussion. But we must bear in mind that not only do we share the common interest of tree-care related topics, but no less so that we're computer users. It's therefore a pertinent subject here and should not be neglected.
In closing, I'd like to call for responsibility and consideration of others when uploading images here (and elsewhere). If the image is larger than 1024 wide and/or 768 high, reduce it. If it's a JPEG with a quality higher than 75, reduce it. If it's for your avatar and its larger than 80x80, REDUCE IT! Please don't be lazy and dump a huge amount of data on others, especially when the extra data just goes to waste and causes great inconvenience to nearly half the users while doing so.
Don't forget that every byte in and out of the server "here" has a direct cost to Mark and Tom.
Cheers,
Glen
I use 1024x768
I have a 15" monitor on this computer
Ditto for me on those two points, at least on the laptop. It's 1152x864 on the 17" tube. I understand some larger-dimension panels are getting pretty cheap anymore though.
I maximize my windows
The only windows I ever have maximized are the ones displaying an image that's larger than the display size or the fairly rare text-comparison output if it has objectionably long lines. I can't imagine any other scenario where that would make sense; lines of text can get too long causing reading difficulty by making scanning back to the beginning of the next line a hit-or-miss proposition. Beside that, it's convenient to select any one of the other windows open at the time by just clicking on it, or to position it such that its program output can be monitored in the background. If my display were limited to 800x600 then I guess I would have my browser, at least, go full-screen. But I haven't used a screen that small in probably a decade.
I enjoy using Windows
I enjoy using IE
If both of those statements are honest and result from informed and adequate comparison with other current environments, then more power to you and good luck! If they are merely results of becoming even just somewhat accustomed to using what came installed on the computer then "good luck!" even more, and I submit that there are other operating environments which are very much more stable, secure, capable, not to mention wringing better performance out of the same hardware; and most of them free of charge and most can also be tried without altering the present setup whatsoever.
You are running with an account having less than full administrative privileges, aren't you? I understand it can be quite a bit of work to enable a typical Windows setup to "work" well for everyday use that way but it's absolutely imperative for the sake of safety, especially when networked. It may not make as much difference if you're the only user of the computer, but if something nasty should happen it would really be a shame to take the whole OS installation out from under other users too. Chances are (and they are, based on your stated preference) that when it happens you'll hose your own private data no matter where/what you're using, but when running as "admin" you place the entire system at risk. I know I'd hate to hose someone else's personal data almost as much as I'd hate to have them hose mine. To avoid it, don't do mundane things as "admin", a mode of general operation suitable only for single-user non-connected computing.
I have a maximum DL speed of 72kbs on a straight download, up to mid 500kbs on www.toast.net/performance
Ha!ha! I get "14898 Kb" on the text portion if their mechanism for reporting is to be believed. In fact, however, it was a solid 11KB (88Kb) thanks to modem compression mechanisms. Performance on text would be much better if they gzip-compressed it on the way out of the server. It would then appear to be arriving at the same 4.5KB/s as compressed image files, but after local expansion it would yield much higher throughput.
I dont like having to click leventy dozen pics
I do like embeded pics, assuming they dont stretch my page
I'd much rather be able to "opt in" to each and every attachment for a couple of reasons. First being that I might not want to see/wait for them. Second but foremost being that I have the browser set up to pass non-embedded images off for display to an external program which can manipulate them (which is often necessary for best appreciation) in every way imaginable. Thus links get my vote.
Probably not so much with this message board software, dependent on the license terms, but it would generally be not too much trouble to create a configuration mechanism for user-optionally embedding either the attachments (if applicable) or links to them within the posts.
If you'd be willing to install "privoxy" I would gladly provide you with a filter rule which would embed each attachment into its post so you wouldn't have to click them; all leventy dozen of them.
I dont have a problem with anyone's pics with regards to size or quality.
I take that to mean you think I do have problems with them. Quite the contrary. I only endeavor to assist in making things better for everyone involved here when I see areas which can use some improvement; where the images have problems with themselves. Isn't that what we're all here for? Comradeship and helping each other out? That's why I'm here. How about you?
I dont know Glens DL speed, but if its maxed at 56k, I am under 50% faster.
Speed is really composed of two parts: throughput and latency (I know, Cary, but you know what I mean). High throughput with low latency is the best combination and low throughput with high latency is the worst, though high throughput with high latency might give it a run for the "losing" trophy because it's so maddening to see the potential but not be able to consistently realize it. Your typical cable or DSL connection would fall in the first category, your typical dial-up would fall in the second, and something like a satellite connection would be encompassed by the last.
I'd love to have a connection with low latency even if the throughput was no more than I presently achieve (I get 106 ms best round-trip time to the first device other side of the phone just now, and that sets the stage for everything; every request packet and every received packet acknowledgment). It sounds like you have a low-latency connection; congratulations. What do you get for the first jump out of your house/office when you enter "tracert www.treebuzz.com" in a "cmd" window?
I know that if it stretches the page all I have to do is A slide over and read the posts without the avatars or increase my screen resolution.
You're not using an LCD panel at less than its native resolution are you? At more than? If a tube, are you running it at less than its maximum effective capacity? Why?
So long as the text wraps before the far side of the window it's not that big a deal to have to use the bottom scroll bar once per page. When the text wraps beyond the side of the window, however, it's even worse than trying to read a PDF, say, which has two columns that are taller than the viewing portion of the window, or the typical-of-late email reply which quotes everything below the current information. Constantly having to relocate the content within the viewing window is quite tedious at best. Expanding the window to full screen-width in order to alleviate an "active" side-scroll situation is hardly a solution because the extra difficulty of scanning back to the start of the next line, as previously mentioned.
I know my connection speed is on the slow side of the spectrum
I do not want to hold back others enjoyment because I have to wait a couple extra seconds per picture.
Nor do I. If one person invests a few seconds at the start of the process, however, and can thereby save every other person those or more seconds (or minutes!), why is that a bad thing? Is it a bad thing to ask them to do so? It's not! In fact, if everyone took the time to be considerate of everyone else in this way everybody's enjoyment would be much fuller.
I think complaining about that is trying to reduce everyone to the lowest common demoniator, a typical thing for the government regulations, something I try to avoid.
Again, not so much the lowest common denominator. Rather, highest common consideration for others.
Incidentally, the "governmental regulations" statement was largely responsible for my addressing this post! Legislated "goodness" can't hardly get lower on my list of things to like; it's already bouncing off the bottom.
I think there is nothing inherently evil or wrong in large high quality pictures.
Absolutely. When one is printing, archiving, or manipulating them, the larger and higher-quality the better! If all one is doing is viewing them on-screen as if they were so many snap-shots, there is definitely a line which marks the limit of reasonableness; especially when they're being shared with others. There's absolutely no reason to transfer more data than necessary for the task at hand. Apart from handheld devices, it would be a relatively safe assumption that a screen size of at least 1024x768 is going to be encountered anymore. So there's no reason to be attaching images for viewing that are wider or taller than those dimensions! Whenever such a one is being viewed, it's either being shrunk for display or it must be panned. Either way it's a waste.
If there's some particular fine detail which needs to be preserved, then don't shrink the entire image but instead crop out the part and share it in its full detailed glory. Don't just send the whole enchilada and place the burden on everyone else. This site has a higher proportion of technically-capable users than most such sites I've seen; let's show that to the world!
I think that with the proper aplication of common sense I realized that since others have faster connections, I will choose not to bicker about large pictures as I find that I enjoy them myself.
I understand that some, for whatever reason have a computer that is less capable than mine, however they are in the minority so I will serve the minority whos connection speeds are faster than mine, pleasing more, displeasing less.
Those were fine expressions of fine qualities.
I'd be inclined to consider the majority to have less-capable computing experiences, even when the hardware/connections are superior. The vast robotic quantity of spam and attempts to break in to my computers attests to it.
I know that regardless of connection speed the information will (other variables aside) get there, eventually.
I think some patience from those that are on the lower connection speed scale should have patience and not try to hold back the whole board to our caveman connection speeds.
Maybe, maybe not. Many of the image attachments here (though decidedly a minority) never make it all the way to my side of the modem. I occasionally don't have the time to sit and wait several minutes with the connection totally tied up for some of them. It would maybe be different if it didn't prevent me from other 'net interaction in the meantime. And again, it's not just about connection speeds. It's about end use of the images. Printing and/or archiving should be done with JPEG quality factor as high as is practical. Sharing with others for snapshot-type viewing on a computer screen should rarely be above a quality factor of 75 and definitely no larger in either dimension than the typical viewing screen.
I know that because of where I live I have the fastest internet connection avaiable, and it didnt come cheap.
I think that a dialuppers argument is while indeed founded, largely unimportant. Realizing he is in the minority (such as myself) he should be enough of a gentleman to take some discomfort for the better good.
The "he" being me, right? Those on dial-up connection are definitely in the minority. More so in Canada from what I understand, but here in the U.S. the last figure I'm aware of is just barely less than 50%. Hardly such a disparity that "we" should all pull off onto the shoulder and let everyone else use both lanes, so to speak!
I really hadn't intended to spend much more time here on this sort of topic. At least for a while. I understand it's not the main topic of discussion. But we must bear in mind that not only do we share the common interest of tree-care related topics, but no less so that we're computer users. It's therefore a pertinent subject here and should not be neglected.
In closing, I'd like to call for responsibility and consideration of others when uploading images here (and elsewhere). If the image is larger than 1024 wide and/or 768 high, reduce it. If it's a JPEG with a quality higher than 75, reduce it. If it's for your avatar and its larger than 80x80, REDUCE IT! Please don't be lazy and dump a huge amount of data on others, especially when the extra data just goes to waste and causes great inconvenience to nearly half the users while doing so.
Don't forget that every byte in and out of the server "here" has a direct cost to Mark and Tom.
Cheers,
Glen
Attachments
/forum/images/graemlins/laughabove.gif
Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.
By the way, Butch, thanks for maybe kinda sorta fixing the viewability of attachments at your site. I very, very rarely "lurk" there anyway, but at least now when following the odd link to the place it won't be a total waste of time.
You do know what visitors are presented with now, right?
By the way, Butch, thanks for maybe kinda sorta fixing the viewability of attachments at your site. I very, very rarely "lurk" there anyway, but at least now when following the odd link to the place it won't be a total waste of time.
You do know what visitors are presented with now, right?
Lumberjack
Branched out member
Alot of good info in there Glens. I will pour through it a time or two and gleen more info from it. Kinda like a high quality pic HA!
- Location
- Watchung, NJ
I thought I had issues.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
What's on your mind? TCI Magazine wants to know
- Started by Tree Care Industry Assoc.
- Replies: 9
-
Apr 09 (Free CEUs) & May 07 - 'Urban Forestry Today' Webcasts @ Noon (Eastern)- Started by UFT
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
