c4countdown

Can some kind person tell me how to attach photos to my posts? I can't understand why I can't do it. I used to be so clever, but I can't quite remember when that was.

George F. Jenkins wrote:Can some kind person tell me how to attach photos to my posts? I can't understand why I can't do it. I used to be so clever, but I can't quite remember when that was.

First you need to get the photo/picture online George, you can't just attach a photo from your own computer, you need to get it on the Internet first:
1. Go here: http://www.tinypic.com/
2. Where it says File press the Browse button, and find the picture on your computer, then press OK once you have selected the photo.
3. Ignore the rest of the options on that page and press the big green UPLOAD NOW button.
4. For a security check, a little window will pop up with two words in it - type in the two words where asked and again press the new green UPLOAD NOW button.
5. After the image has uploaded the page will reload. On the left is a series of four yellow boxes.
6. Click on the text inside the second yellow box - the box is titled "IMG Code for forums..." and the text starts with [IMG ]. When you click on it, it will automatically be copied to the clipboard, which is an invisible storage thing.
7. Come back to C4C, as you are composing a post you can right-click in the box where you write your message, and choose Paste.
8. The code (that starts with [IMG ] and ends with [/IMG]) will be pasted into the box. Use the Preview button rather than Submit if you want to check the picture is working as you'd hope.

Best of luck Sir Jenks.

Thank you Matt, there is more to it than I thought. I have the feeling that I am fifty years too late with this computer lark. I can still remember taking the wireles accumulater to the sweet shop to be charged up. The cost was sixpence.

George F. Jenkins wrote:I can still remember taking the wireles accumulater to the sweet shop to be charged up. The cost was sixpence.

That's not so long ago, George. My Dad ran the little petrol generator that charged up people's radio batteries. A few years later he had a radio shop (and a few years later still it went bust).

It wasn't that long ago that bashing rocks together was the only game in town.

I've just rediscovered this brochure featuring the IBM 3250 which my granddad Hugh worked on, and it seems appropriate to post a couple of bits from it here and now.
That's my granddad on the front cover that is, he was a good and clever man. Also, Sally Owen is hot.

Gavin Chipper wrote:It wasn't that long ago that bashing rocks together was the only game in town.

That was the early '80s. Up til then it had mostly been powder, but changing economic incentives and aggressive border policing made the switch to rocks inevitable. The epidemic continued until the early '90s when the market tanked for reasons still unexplained. Freakonomics argued that this was a delayed result of the historic legalization of abortion in 1973.

[
Amen to that.

Matt Morrison wrote:Also, Sally Owen is hot.

I think Carole Fulford is hotter. Carole's all mysterious and like "hey baby you don't know what you'll get into when you get with me" whereas Sally's more like "come on boys, who wants me first?" and is basically a slut. At least, that's the impression I get from the photo, I've not met them or anything.

JimBentley wrote:

Matt Morrison wrote:Also, Sally Owen is hot.

I think Carole Fulford is hotter. Carole's all mysterious and like "hey baby you don't know what you'll get into when you get with me" whereas Sally's more like "come on boys, who wants me first?" and is basically a slut. At least, that's the impression I get from the photo, I've not met them or anything.

Haha I like to think the Carole Fulford photo isn't actually posed at all. She just constantly had men hanging round her desk pestering her and the photographer just showed up behind and went "cheese!".
See what you mean about Fulford's mystery, again that might just be a product of the 'startled deer' type effect of the photo. Both hot as fuck.

Is it worth having a poll on this? I'm with Fulford.

Rosemary Roberts wrote:

George F. Jenkins wrote:I can still remember taking the wireless accumulator to the sweet shop to be charged up. The cost was sixpence.

That's not so long ago, George. My Dad ran the little petrol generator that charged up people's radio batteries. A few years later he had a radio shop (and a few years later still it went bust).

Sorry to read about your Dad Rosemary, and I've seen it happen over the years. It's called technology and progress. Now life is full of gadgets to make sure that we are entertained round the clock. A plug to stick in your ear while you walk and listen to the non-stop junk that is churned out. Dozens of television programmes to keep us amused. However, in case I am accused of being an old moaner and hankering after the good old days, I must confess that we have all the Hi.Fi. stuff, audio tape players and disc players. Last month I bought three new digital television sets which are a pleasure to watch, and left four old sets (still in working order) in the front garden for the scrap merchants. The good old days? no they were not. But if I could only keep awake while I'm watching or listening to all this wonderful stuff, life would be perfect

George F. Jenkins wrote:Dozens of television programmes to keep us amused.

Oh there can't possibly be that many.

You are right Jon, I am not personally amused by most programmes, but there must be plenty of people who would watch anything who are. I was writing generally about what is available now, especially with the different ways of producing music for our entertainment. I remember Christopher Stone who ran a half hour programme of records of popular music. That was once a week, and was the only music heard on the wireless. To ward off possible attacks, I repeat that it was the only music programme I ever heard.