Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Printers that print on both sides of the paper

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:30:14 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.
--
I used to think that most MDs were incompetent morons. I was wrong,
they are actually very intelligent and good at what they do which is
make lots of money and get lots of prestige by shoveling enormous
amounts of BS very, very rapidly.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 9:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

There are others, some made by HP (I think). However, even with the Canon
Pixma line, i.e. the iP4000 that I have, the duplex feature is of marginal
value IMHO. Why? Two reasons. #1 it is quite slow. #2 you need a very good
opaque sheet that prevents bleed through of the ink from one side to the
other. This isn't a problem with 2S printing on a laser since it uses dry
toner, but on an inkjet the liquid ink will soak through and be very evident
on the reverse side.
--
Ron Cohen

"Daniel Prince" <neutrino1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:co2h6194umpe75esqok61t2bhvsoplms5l@4ax.com...
> Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
> will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
> turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.
> --
> I used to think that most MDs were incompetent morons. I was wrong,
> they are actually very intelligent and good at what they do which is
> make lots of money and get lots of prestige by shoveling enormous
> amounts of BS very, very rapidly.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:12:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

No. My HP990CSE and most of the later HP DeskJet business printers can
print full duplex as well. Epson is the only major brand that does not
offer this feature.

Daniel Prince wrote:

>Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
>will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
>turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 10:17:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

>There are others, some made by HP (I think). However, even with the Canon
>Pixma line, i.e. the iP4000 that I have, the duplex feature is of marginal
>value IMHO. Why? Two reasons. #1 it is quite slow. #2 you need a very good
>opaque sheet that prevents bleed through of the ink from one side to the
>other.
>

No really true. As for #1, while it will not break speed records you
can vary the speed by changing the dry time. It is flexible and really
nice. As for #2, I have been using Hamermill 24# JetPrint(now
discontinued but replaced) other Hammermill injet and laser jet 24#
paper, Kodak Paper and other major brands with no evidence of bleed
through. I would suspect that most major brands of 24# will be OK.

>This isn't a problem with 2S printing on a laser since it uses dry
>toner, but on an inkjet the liquid ink will soak through and be very evident
>on the reverse side.
>
>

I have found the above statement totally false and I have used many
brands of paper and have frequent need and use of this feature.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 11:17:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you have
frequent need and use of this feature? Drying time has absolutely nothing to
do with the mechanical speed of the paper pickup. Using the duplex feature
it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end of side one until the first
character is printed on side two. The duplex feature is interesting and if
someone absolutely needs such a feature then the Pixma line is a cost
effective choice. As to paper and bleed through it is especially bad on
Canon 24# Brilliant White Inkjet Paper and Weyerhaeuser 24#. 20# paper is
out of the question although it does just fine when printed 2S with a laser.
And before you set yourself up as an expert on paper types and try to be the
supreme ultimate authority in that area as well, I will let you in on part
of my background. I've owned three print shops and know paper and paper
types very well.
--
Ron Cohen

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:p F0ae.1842$Xb4.711@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>>There are others, some made by HP (I think). However, even with the Canon
>>Pixma line, i.e. the iP4000 that I have, the duplex feature is of marginal
>>value IMHO. Why? Two reasons. #1 it is quite slow. #2 you need a very
>>good opaque sheet that prevents bleed through of the ink from one side to
>>the other.
>
> No really true. As for #1, while it will not break speed records you can
> vary the speed by changing the dry time. It is flexible and really nice.
> As for #2, I have been using Hamermill 24# JetPrint(now discontinued but
> replaced) other Hammermill injet and laser jet 24# paper, Kodak Paper and
> other major brands with no evidence of bleed through. I would suspect
> that most major brands of 24# will be OK.
>
>>This isn't a problem with 2S printing on a laser since it uses dry toner,
>>but on an inkjet the liquid ink will soak through and be very evident on
>>the reverse side.
>>
>
> I have found the above statement totally false and I have used many brands
> of paper and have frequent need and use of this feature.
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 12:24:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I use the Canon IP3000 for duplexing all the time. 28# copy paper works fine
and it's almost 2x as fast as my old HP 990 at duplexing, mostly because
it's just a faster printer.


"Ron Cohen" <drc023@N^O+S~P^A^M.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2y1ae.1222$l45.218@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
> admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you have
> frequent need and use of this feature? Drying time has absolutely nothing
to
> do with the mechanical speed of the paper pickup. Using the duplex feature
> it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end of side one until the first
> character is printed on side two. The duplex feature is interesting and if
> someone absolutely needs such a feature then the Pixma line is a cost
> effective choice. As to paper and bleed through it is especially bad on
> Canon 24# Brilliant White Inkjet Paper and Weyerhaeuser 24#. 20# paper is
> out of the question although it does just fine when printed 2S with a
laser.
> And before you set yourself up as an expert on paper types and try to be
the
> supreme ultimate authority in that area as well, I will let you in on part
> of my background. I've owned three print shops and know paper and paper
> types very well.
> --
> Ron Cohen
>
> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:p F0ae.1842$Xb4.711@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > Ron Cohen wrote:
> >
> >>There are others, some made by HP (I think). However, even with the
Canon
> >>Pixma line, i.e. the iP4000 that I have, the duplex feature is of
marginal
> >>value IMHO. Why? Two reasons. #1 it is quite slow. #2 you need a very
> >>good opaque sheet that prevents bleed through of the ink from one side
to
> >>the other.
> >
> > No really true. As for #1, while it will not break speed records you
can
> > vary the speed by changing the dry time. It is flexible and really
nice.
> > As for #2, I have been using Hamermill 24# JetPrint(now discontinued but
> > replaced) other Hammermill injet and laser jet 24# paper, Kodak Paper
and
> > other major brands with no evidence of bleed through. I would suspect
> > that most major brands of 24# will be OK.
> >
> >>This isn't a problem with 2S printing on a laser since it uses dry
toner,
> >>but on an inkjet the liquid ink will soak through and be very evident on
> >>the reverse side.
> >>
> >
> > I have found the above statement totally false and I have used many
brands
> > of paper and have frequent need and use of this feature.
>
>
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 2:26:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Daniel,

We have a HP 6122 which has duplexing capability. This printer is still
available from Newegg and others for around $170. There is also a network
version ( 6127 ) of the printer but I think it costs about $100 more than
the 6122. The printer is very fast although there is a lot more mechanical
noise than with other HP printers we have.

We do very little photo printing but what we've done with this printer is
very good - to our eyes anyway.

Wayne

"Daniel Prince" <neutrino1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:co2h6194umpe75esqok61t2bhvsoplms5l@4ax.com...
> Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
> will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
> turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.
> --
> I used to think that most MDs were incompetent morons. I was wrong,
> they are actually very intelligent and good at what they do which is
> make lots of money and get lots of prestige by shoveling enormous
> amounts of BS very, very rapidly.
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Anonymous
April 22, 2005 6:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you have
>frequent need and use of this feature?
>

Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I" under
the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of the
time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to print
duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.

>Drying time has absolutely nothing to
>do with the mechanical speed of the paper pickup.
>

It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.

>Using the duplex feature
>it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end of side one until the first
>character is printed on side two.
>

I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document and
want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning the
paper over by hand and feeding it back in.

>The duplex feature is interesting and if
>someone absolutely needs such a feature then the Pixma line is a cost
>effective choice.
>

Some absolutely need it, some just need it, some like it, and some do
not know they need it.

>As to paper and bleed through it is especially bad on
>Canon 24# Brilliant White Inkjet Paper and Weyerhaeuser 24#. 20# paper is
>out of the question although it does just fine when printed 2S with a laser.
>
>

Try Hammermill 24# or Kodak Ultra Bright also a 24# bond. I am also
sure that toliet paper would bleed.

>And before you set yourself up as an expert on paper types and try to be the
>supreme ultimate authority in that area as well, I will let you in on part
>of my background. I've owned three print shops and know paper and paper
>types very well.
>
>

I really do not care about your background and what you know about
paper. I just went down to Stapes and looked at ultra bright - 106+ 24#
paper. Since they had a good deal on Hammermill (International Paper) I
bought it and liked it better than the Office Depot Shark White I had
before. Neither paper bleed. So I use it and am satisfied. I do not
need to know any more about paper. And it I deed I can call customer
service of any of the large paper houses and they will help me choose a
paper for a specific job if I need that advice.
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 11:43:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In grave ink the dread hand of Daniel Prince did inscribe:

> Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
> will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
> turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.

Define low-cost... If you are willing to dig around on Ebay
you can find used laserjet printers with duplexers.

I have a laserjet4+ with 50Mb ram, postscript, 10M jetdirect and
a duplexer; I paid about $200USD for it. But then again that was
a few years ago <g>

--
"My problems all started with my early education. I went to a
school for mentally disturbed teachers."
-Woody Allen
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 2:48:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fT7ae.1884$Xb4.1094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

>
>
> Ron Cohen wrote:
>
>>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you
>>have frequent need and use of this feature?
>>
>
> Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
> understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I"
> under the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
> Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of
> the time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
> enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to
> print duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.
>
>>Drying time has absolutely nothing to
>>do with the mechanical speed of the paper pickup.
>>
>
> It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
> results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
> I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.
>
>>Using the duplex feature
>>it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end of side one until the
>>first character is printed on side two.
>>
>
> I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
> and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
> the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>


"Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!

You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed it.

Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.

Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes 12
pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
I need a good laugh.

Brian Potter
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 5:17:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

The HP 990CSE/CXI was the first inkjet to do so. Great draft mode that
almost rivals others in standard more and reasonable fast. It duplexes
without any problems. I have not had a jam in over 3 years.

Brad Sims wrote:

>In grave ink the dread hand of Daniel Prince did inscribe:
>
>
>
>>Are the Canons the only low cost printers available in the USA that
>>will print on both sides of the paper without the user having to
>>turn the paper over manually? Thank you in advance for all replies.
>>
>>
>
>Define low-cost... If you are willing to dig around on Ebay
>you can find used laserjet printers with duplexers.
>
>I have a laserjet4+ with 50Mb ram, postscript, 10M jetdirect and
>a duplexer; I paid about $200USD for it. But then again that was
>a few years ago <g>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 10:59:45 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Brian Potter wrote:

>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:fT7ae.1884$Xb4.1094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>
>>Ron Cohen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>>>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you
>>>have frequent need and use of this feature?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
>>understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I"
>>under the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
>>Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of
>>the time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
>>enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to
>>print duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Drying time has absolutely nothing to
>>>do with the mechanical speed of the paper pickup.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
>>results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
>> I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Using the duplex feature
>>>it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end of side one until the
>>>first character is printed on side two.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
>>and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
>>the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>"Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!
>
>You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
>page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed it.
>
>Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
>duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
>wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.
>
>Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
>them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
>In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes 12
>pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
>I need a good laugh.
>
>Brian Potter
>
>

Well why don't you run this test. Get a 12 page document and configure
the printer for duplex printing. Press the print button. Now go to the
bathroom and jerk off. After you have a real good time your document is
done.

If you did not have this feature you would still be horney. :-D
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 11:14:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> The HP 990CSE/CXI was the first inkjet to do so. Great draft mode that
> almost rivals others in standard more and reasonable fast. It duplexes
> without any problems. I have not had a jam in over 3 years.
>
Wrong again. The HP 970 had a duplexer std and I think I remember
others lessor 9xx models it was an option. The 990 came after the 970.

I'll give you a half point because it was the 9xx series that brought
duplexing to inkjet printers from HP.

Mickey
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:35:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Brian Potter wrote:

> measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in

>>
>>I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
>>and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
>>the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>>
>
> "Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!
>
> You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
> page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed it.
>
> Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
> duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
> wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.
>
> Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
> them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
> In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes 12
> pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
> I need a good laugh.
>
> Brian Potter

You mean you didn't buy Measekite's *expert* Canon salesmanship that it
was faster and more accurate than doing it yourself? What took you so
long".

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 1:58:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <1114349774.020516.306410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"Free Printer Guy" <dwalthers@freeprinters.com> wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> Try the Xerox Phaser 8400DP (Duplex).
>
> http://www.FreePrinters.com/

Or, instead of doing it third party, do it directly from Xerox:

http://www.freecolorprinters.com

No third party to worry about going belly-up or sending you overpriced
third-world supplies. And the Xerox deal includes Xerox service; whose
service, if any, does "Free Printer Guy" include?
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Yup, I have a 970 as my everyday printer. Solid as a rock, very very slow
for duplex, waits for ever to let the ink dry before pulling the paper in to
print the other side. However it is wonderful for printing manuals, just go
have supper while it does it!!
Doug

"Mickey" <mickey@webster.com> wrote in message
news:116nac4k2fd7h3c@corp.supernews.com...
> measekite wrote:
> Wrong again. The HP 970 had a duplexer std and I think I remember
> others lessor 9xx models it was an option. The 990 came after the 970.
>
> I'll give you a half point because it was the 9xx series that brought
> duplexing to inkjet printers from HP.
>
> Mickey
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 6:19:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Doug wrote:

> Yup, I have a 970 as my everyday printer. Solid as a rock, very very slow
> for duplex, waits for ever to let the ink dry before pulling the paper in to
> print the other side. However it is wonderful for printing manuals, just go
> have supper while it does it!!
> Doug
>

I print manuals manually (odd and even pages). Can't imagine anyone
printing 350 pages duplex (Canon's, for example). Both sides of a
page do take over a minute. 350 pages would takes hours. Manual
turning would save an hour or longer of wear and tear on my printer.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:22:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Mickey wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> The HP 990CSE/CXI was the first inkjet to do so. Great draft mode
>> that almost rivals others in standard more and reasonable fast. It
>> duplexes without any problems. I have not had a jam in over 3 years.
>>
> Wrong again. The HP 970 had a duplexer std and I think I remember
> others lessor 9xx models it was an option. The 990 came after the 970.
>
> I'll give you a half point because it was the 9xx series that brought
> duplexing to inkjet printers from HP.
>
> Mickey


HP decided to release a less expensive version of the 990 called the
970. I think that speed was the main difference. And it was an option.
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Doug wrote:

>Yup, I have a 970 as my everyday printer. Solid as a rock, very very slow
>for duplex, waits for ever to let the ink dry before pulling the paper in to
>print the other side. However it is wonderful for printing manuals, just go
>have supper while it does it!!
>Doug
>
>


Go in the driver and you can adjust the drying time. I did and got
faster results and with hammermill 25# paper I find that I did not need
the default drying time. HP chose that default to be conservative
because they did not know what kind of paper the user would print on.

>"Mickey" <mickey@webster.com> wrote in message
>news:116nac4k2fd7h3c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>Wrong again. The HP 970 had a duplexer std and I think I remember
>>others lessor 9xx models it was an option. The 990 came after the 970.
>>
>>I'll give you a half point because it was the 9xx series that brought
>>duplexing to inkjet printers from HP.
>>
>>Mickey
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 24, 2005 7:27:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Taliesyn wrote:

> Doug wrote:
>
>> Yup, I have a 970 as my everyday printer. Solid as a rock, very very
>> slow
>> for duplex, waits for ever to let the ink dry before pulling the
>> paper in to
>> print the other side. However it is wonderful for printing manuals,
>> just go
>> have supper while it does it!!
>> Doug
>>
>
> I print manuals manually (odd and even pages). Can't imagine anyone
> printing 350 pages duplex (Canon's, for example). Both sides of a
> page do take over a minute. 350 pages would takes hours. Manual
> turning would save an hour or longer of wear and tear on my printer.
>
> -Taliesyn


Once you graduate high school you will not need to print that much.
Besides, I am not sure that the input or output tray can handle that
amount of paper. But you can print partially unattended and then go and
jerk off. That might be fun.
April 25, 2005 1:46:31 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

This response is by far your nastiest ever. How I wish this NG were
moderated. Misinformation heaped with invective, personal attack, and
sophomoric schoolyard language.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BtHae.3767$zX7.3269@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Brian Potter wrote:
>
>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:fT7ae.1884$Xb4.1094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>>Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>>>>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you
>>>>have frequent need and use of this feature?
>>>>
>>>Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
>>>understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I"
>>>under the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
>>>Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of
>>>the time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
>>>enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to
>>>print duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Drying time has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical speed of
>>>>the paper pickup.
>>>>
>>>It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
>>>results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
>>> I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Using the duplex feature it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end
>>>>of side one until the
>>>>first character is printed on side two.
>>>>
>>>I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
>>>and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
>>>the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>"Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!
>>
>>You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
>>page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed it.
>>
>>Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
>>duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
>>wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.
>>Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
>>them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
>>In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes 12
>>pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
>>I need a good laugh.
>>
>>Brian Potter
>>
>
> Well why don't you run this test. Get a 12 page document and configure
> the printer for duplex printing. Press the print button. Now go to the
> bathroom and jerk off. After you have a real good time your document is
> done.
>
> If you did not have this feature you would still be horney. :-D
April 25, 2005 1:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> This response is by far your nastiest ever. How I wish this NG were
> moderated. Misinformation heaped with invective, personal attack, and
> sophomoric schoolyard language.

He must still live in his Mom's basement so he doesn't as of yet have a
real life.
This ng is his only reality.
Pity.
Frank
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:46:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In grave ink the dread hand of Burt did inscribe:

> This response is by far your nastiest ever. How I wish this NG were
> moderated. Misinformation heaped with invective, personal attack, and
> sophomoric schoolyard language.

Um, I am not sure but I think that OE has a killfile, if not
get a dedicated newsreader...

In either case, Laughing Boy is gonna spend a year in the fillfile
on my end.

--
Actually knowing what's really going on in our computers and making
sure it's doing the right thing, instead of just trusting Big Brother to
take care of us is completely old-fashioned; nobody does that anymore.
-- Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes in the SDM
April 25, 2005 1:48:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Measekite again identifies himself as the village putz.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kVOae.37$zu.12@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Taliesyn wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>>
>>> Yup, I have a 970 as my everyday printer. Solid as a rock, very very
>>> slow
>>> for duplex, waits for ever to let the ink dry before pulling the paper
>>> in to
>>> print the other side. However it is wonderful for printing manuals,
>>> just go
>>> have supper while it does it!!
>>> Doug
>>>
>>
>> I print manuals manually (odd and even pages). Can't imagine anyone
>> printing 350 pages duplex (Canon's, for example). Both sides of a
>> page do take over a minute. 350 pages would takes hours. Manual
>> turning would save an hour or longer of wear and tear on my printer.
>>
>> -Taliesyn
>
>
> Once you graduate high school you will not need to print that much.
> Besides, I am not sure that the input or output tray can handle that
> amount of paper. But you can print partially unattended and then go and
> jerk off. That might be fun.
April 25, 2005 1:48:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

> Measekite again identifies himself as the village putz.

>>Once you graduate high school you will not need to print that much.
>>Besides, I am not sure that the input or output tray can handle that
>>amount of paper. But you can print partially unattended and then go and
>>jerk off. That might be fun.

He is also obviously sexually immature.
Frank
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 1:55:42 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:
>
>
> Mickey wrote:
>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> The HP 990CSE/CXI was the first inkjet to do so. Great draft mode
>>> that almost rivals others in standard more and reasonable fast. It
>>> duplexes without any problems. I have not had a jam in over 3 years.
>>>
>> Wrong again. The HP 970 had a duplexer std and I think I remember
>> others lessor 9xx models it was an option. The 990 came after the 970.
>>
>> I'll give you a half point because it was the 9xx series that brought
>> duplexing to inkjet printers from HP.
>>
>> Mickey
>
>
>
> HP decided to release a less expensive version of the 990 called the
> 970. I think that speed was the main difference. And it was an option.

Would you run that by me again? I seem not to have as much knowledge
you you but that might be expected as I only worked for HP for 27 yrs
and son is an eng at Vancouver Div where DJ's developed. He did work
on the 9xx series.

Gemme back that half point. As usual you don't know what you are
talking about. When the 970 was released, the 990 didn't exist, it
came later.

Shees!

Mickey
Anonymous
April 25, 2005 8:52:22 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

You do not seem to protect all of the other imbeciles when they say off
color things to me.

Burt wrote:

>This response is by far your nastiest ever. How I wish this NG were
>moderated. Misinformation heaped with invective, personal attack, and
>sophomoric schoolyard language.
>
>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:BtHae.3767$zX7.3269@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Brian Potter wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>news:fT7ae.1884$Xb4.1094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>>>>>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you
>>>>>have frequent need and use of this feature?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
>>>>understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I"
>>>>under the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
>>>>Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of
>>>>the time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
>>>>enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to
>>>>print duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Drying time has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical speed of
>>>>>the paper pickup.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
>>>>results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
>>>>I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Using the duplex feature it takes approximately 18 seconds from the end
>>>>>of side one until the
>>>>>first character is printed on side two.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
>>>>and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
>>>>the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!
>>>
>>>You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
>>>page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed it.
>>>
>>>Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
>>>duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
>>>wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.
>>>Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
>>>them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
>>>In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes 12
>>>pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
>>>I need a good laugh.
>>>
>>>Brian Potter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Well why don't you run this test. Get a 12 page document and configure
>>the printer for duplex printing. Press the print button. Now go to the
>>bathroom and jerk off. After you have a real good time your document is
>>done.
>>
>>If you did not have this feature you would still be horney. :-D
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
April 25, 2005 8:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> You do not seem to protect all of the other imbeciles when they say off
> color things to me.

Hey...we're watching you!ŸŸ
Frank
April 26, 2005 1:04:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frankly, I'm no prude but I don't like seeing off color or childish name
calling from anyone. But you, Measekite, are over the top with your nasty
comments and continual rant against vendors and products that others have
found reliable. I've never used a post to convince anyone to use a
product - I can only tell them of MY OWN EXPERIENCE with it and guide them
to others who also TELL OF THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE WITH PRODUCTS . Why
don't you do the same? Why try to convince them NOT to try something that
others have used successfully when you have no personal experience with the
vendors or their products. Please don't tell me, now, that you don't have
to jump out of an airplane to tell someone that it is dangerous. I've had
the dubious pleasure of strapping on a parachute on more than one occasion
for military flights across the English Channel and from Singapore to
Australia, and I would have been happy to use it had the necessity arisen.
By the way, If you would really like to speak authoritatively about
parachutes and airplanes I would be pleased to pack your chute for you!

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:af9be.6632$J12.3413@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> You do not seem to protect all of the other imbeciles when they say off
> color things to me.
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>This response is by far your nastiest ever. How I wish this NG were
>>moderated. Misinformation heaped with invective, personal attack, and
>>sophomoric schoolyard language.
>>
>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:BtHae.3767$zX7.3269@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>Brian Potter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:fT7ae.1884$Xb4.1094@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Ron Cohen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>As usual and expected your statements lack credibility. By your own
>>>>>>admission you do very little printing with the iP4000 so how do you
>>>>>>have frequent need and use of this feature?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe you will learn how to read and when you do you will learn how to
>>>>>understand. When I said I do very infrequent printing I meant "I"
>>>>>under the context of photos. I print computer programs, mostly Visual
>>>>>Basic.net and SQL Server DB Diagrams and use 2 sided printing all of
>>>>>the time. The majority is on the HP in draft mode but I use the Canon
>>>>>enough. The Canon is exposed on the network and others use it to
>>>>>print duplex business documents. So wake up and smell the roses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Drying time has absolutely nothing to do with the mechanical speed of
>>>>>>the paper pickup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>It has to to with the total speed. I am concerned with when I get the
>>>>>results. Sure a high speed laser is faster and I have used them also.
>>>>>I just do not want to spend $10,000 on one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Using the duplex feature it takes approximately 18 seconds from the
>>>>>>end of side one until the
>>>>>>first character is printed on side two.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>I never measure it but I am sure that if you have a 12 page document
>>>>>and want to save 50% paper it is faster and more accurate than turning
>>>>>the paper over by hand and feeding it back in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>"Faster" and "more accurate", my ass!
>>>>
>>>>You obviously use it only for amusement and to impress people. Even one
>>>>page duplexed takes twice as long as one page manually flipped. Timed
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>Printing a numbered 12 page document using the agonizingly slow Canon
>>>>duplex feature on my Pixma takes 6 minutes and 43 seconds! My wife
>>>>wasn't impressed and threatened to leave if I ever made her watch again.
>>>>Printing that same 12 page document manually, odd pages first, flipping
>>>>them over, printing the even ones, takes only 2 minutes and 12 seconds.
>>>>In plain English, I could print 36 pages manually in the time it takes
>>>>12
>>>>pages duplex printed! Tell me again how it's faster and more accurate.
>>>>I need a good laugh.
>>>>
>>>>Brian Potter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Well why don't you run this test. Get a 12 page document and configure
>>>the printer for duplex printing. Press the print button. Now go to the
>>>bathroom and jerk off. After you have a real good time your document is
>>>done.
>>>
>>>If you did not have this feature you would still be horney. :-D
>>
>>
>>
April 26, 2005 1:04:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> Frankly, I'm no prude but I don't like seeing off color or childish name
> calling from anyone. But you, Measekite, are over the top with your nasty
> comments and continual rant against vendors and products that others have
> found reliable. I've never used a post to convince anyone to use a
> product - I can only tell them of MY OWN EXPERIENCE with it and guide them
> to others who also TELL OF THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE WITH PRODUCTS . Why
> don't you do the same? Why try to convince them NOT to try something that
> others have used successfully when you have no personal experience with the
> vendors or their products. Please don't tell me, now, that you don't have
> to jump out of an airplane to tell someone that it is dangerous. I've had
> the dubious pleasure of strapping on a parachute on more than one occasion
> for military flights across the English Channel and from Singapore to
> Australia, and I would have been happy to use it had the necessity arisen.
> By the way, If you would really like to speak authoritatively about
> parachutes and airplanes I would be pleased to pack your chute for you!
>

Maybe he should have some kind of a disclaimer or warning under his sig
line such as:

"WARNING:
My unprofessional opinion expressed here concerning 3rd party inks is
not based on any actual user experience but is solely a figment of my
imagination."

Frank
April 26, 2005 1:04:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> I cannot how an educated person like you acts so dumb to the facts that
> are before your eyes. I never said that 100% of all after market ink is
> bad. Got it. But the industry is no professional. Wake up and smell
> the roses.

A Professional is one who is in a given activity as a source of
livelihood or as a career.
Can you say...business professional. Good! Now if you only acted like an
adult or in a grown up manner you just might get treated like one from
the business professionals in the after market ink supply business and
posters in this ng.
I know that's difficult for you but at least try.
Now be a good boy and mommy will give you some cookies.
Frank
April 26, 2005 1:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

> I remember seeing that info in consumers, but I don't remember the
> aftermarket inks they tested. I also remember the Wilhelm tests of
> aftermarket inks, but these inks were unknown to me. Carrot was one, and I
> don't remember the others. Needless to say, they weren't labeled from any
> of the vendors that I've seen positive posts about. I would certainly like
> to see a reputable firm properly test the inks I see recommended. In the
> meanwhile I can only say that successful use of several of these products,
> as reported anecdotally on forums and newsgroups, is good enough for me. I
> can only personally attest to the value of the materials I have used.

Burt I don't think anyone in this ng really takes marionette or his
sophomoric statements seriously. I certainly don't. For me he is nothing
more than someone who I currently find slightly amusing.
However, I do believe we must always be on guard and ever vigilant to
dispel the lies, deceit, misinformation and verbal diarrhea that a
malockus (phonetic sp) like manicotti is capable of splattering all over
this ng.
And of course, to protect the innocents. :-)
Frank
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:00:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hickory Dickery Dock

The clock struck one

The other got away


That is you!!!!! :-*

Frank wrote:

> Burt wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I'm no prude but I don't like seeing off color or childish
>> name calling from anyone. But you, Measekite, are over the top with
>> your nasty comments and continual rant against vendors and products
>> that others have found reliable. I've never used a post to convince
>> anyone to use a product - I can only tell them of MY OWN EXPERIENCE
>> with it and guide them to others who also TELL OF THEIR OWN
>> EXPERIENCE WITH PRODUCTS . Why don't you do the same? Why try to
>> convince them NOT to try something that others have used successfully
>> when you have no personal experience with the vendors or their
>> products. Please don't tell me, now, that you don't have to jump out
>> of an airplane to tell someone that it is dangerous. I've had the
>> dubious pleasure of strapping on a parachute on more than one
>> occasion for military flights across the English Channel and from
>> Singapore to Australia, and I would have been happy to use it had the
>> necessity arisen. By the way, If you would really like to speak
>> authoritatively about parachutes and airplanes I would be pleased to
>> pack your chute for you!
>>
>
> Maybe he should have some kind of a disclaimer or warning under his
> sig line such as:
>
> "WARNING:
> My unprofessional opinion expressed here concerning 3rd party inks is
> not based on any actual user experience but is solely a figment of my
> imagination."
>
> Frank
April 26, 2005 3:00:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> Hickory Dickery Dock
>
> The clock struck one
>
> The other got away
>
>
> That is you!!!!! :-*
>
Oh my...hey little boy, does your mommy know you're using the computer?
Frank
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:24:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> Who ever said I was educated?

You tell him, Burt. Don't let him call you educated. You have to earn it.

> What does any of this have to do with how
> roses smell?

It's vital to have a good nose to sniff out "hawkers and whores" (his
words, not mine).

> The FACT is that several of the vendors you put down have
> customers on this NG who have been well served by doing business with them.
> That is the FACT, Measie. The FICTION is that you paint them all with the
> same brush and overlook the FACT that many small, honest businesses, either
> bricks and mortar or ecommerce, have a less imposing presentation than a
> Costco or Office Depot. That doesn't necessarily mean that they sell shoddy
> products or cheat people. What their web site looks like doesn't affect the
> how the ink functions in our printers.


Exactly. I found the same brand compatible carts on eBay ($3 or
something) that were being sold in my bricks and mortar Radio Shack
store here in Canada for $15 CAD. Fancy store = fancy price.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 3:56:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> If you like to do business with shlock houses then go ahead. When a
> person looks for a job they usually get dressed up and do not wear a
> Tshirt with holes. They do not make a professional presentation. Like
> I said before, maybe Formulabs BRAND and MIS Labeled inks are OK. I
> sure would like to see a study of a couple of thousand users of each and
> see tabulated results.
>

He'd like to see a study of a "COUPLE OF THOUSAND USERS" to see if
compatible cartridges are safe in his, not far from entry level, $100
printer. That tells you a lot about the person, doesn't it? So, do we
safely double it to FOUR THOUSAND USERS before you consider refilling
them yourself? By the way, Alotofthings has over FIVE THOUSAND USERS,
happy ones at that. I guess you'll be beating a path to their door real
soon.

> And even Consumer Reports concluded that OEM inks are best. And they do
> not take advertising from Printer Manufacturers.

Consumer Reports is generally worthless to the professional user. It's
aimed primarily at first time buyers who know little or nothing about
the products. Their reports and tests are generally outdated and
incomplete. You rarely got tests on current printers, for example. They
were always behind what I was going to buy. We dumped the magazine
years ago.

-Taliesyn
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:49:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>> I cannot how an educated person like you acts so dumb to the facts
>> that are before your eyes. I never said that 100% of all after
>> market ink is bad. Got it. But the industry is no professional.
>> Wake up and smell the roses.
>
>
> A Professional is one who is in a given activity as a source of
> livelihood or as a career.
> Can you say...business professional. Good! Now if you only acted like
> an adult or in a grown up manner you just might get treated like one
> from the business professionals in the after market ink supply
> business and posters in this ng.
> I know that's difficult for you but at least try.
> Now be a good boy and mommy will give you some cookies.
> Frank


Stop whacking off and learn English
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:39:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> Burt wrote:
>
>> I remember seeing that info in consumers, but I don't remember the
>> aftermarket inks they tested. I also remember the Wilhelm tests of
>> aftermarket inks, but these inks were unknown to me. Carrot was one,
>> and I don't remember the others. Needless to say, they weren't
>> labeled from any of the vendors that I've seen positive posts about.
>> I would certainly like to see a reputable firm properly test the inks
>> I see recommended. In the meanwhile I can only say that successful
>> use of several of these products, as reported anecdotally on forums
>> and newsgroups, is good enough for me. I can only personally attest
>> to the value of the materials I have used.
>
>
> Burt I don't think anyone in this ng really takes marionette or his
> sophomoric statements seriously. I certainly don't. For me he is
> nothing more than someone who I currently find slightly amusing.
> However, I do believe we must always be on guard and ever vigilant to
> dispel the lies, deceit, misinformation and verbal diarrhea that a
> malockus (phonetic sp) like manicotti is capable of splattering all
> over this ng.
> And of course, to protect the innocents. :-)
> Frank


And that is why I write what I do.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:53:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

>Measekite,
>
>You continually post about vendors who won't divulge the manufacturer of
>their supplies. In particular you disparage Weink and Alotofthings.
>

Not true. I just tell the truth about alotofcrap and westink. You are
entitled to your own opinion. That is why they are still able to run
their low life businesses.

>Weink
>has responded as to who manufactures their ink and are you absolutely
>certain that Alotofthings doesn't state who makes their ink?
>

Go to their website. Edit, copy and past the info if you can find it
into a post. I would like to see it. As for WeStink, he was spamming
this NG by providing info under the guise for free until I exposed him.
He then admitted he is doing it to increase sales and is not doing it
out of the goodness of his heart that he does not have.

Because these people were exposed and because the fact you patronize
these people makes many on this ng look like fools. well I can
understand why you are pissed off. But like the old saying goes, it is
better to be pissed off than pissed on.

>So far that's
>what you claim. And you refer to these two highly respected vendors as
>whores. The following quotes are from your posting below "Most do not put
>in writing what they say. I call these whores." and "Now for the record -
>alotofcrap and WeStink are whores in the business" Once again, are you
>absolutely certain that Alotofthings doesn't state on their website who
>makes their ink?
>
>

As of a week ago yes. And they do not have a webstore on their site.
They sell on eBay.

>You continually defame Alotofthings as having an unprofessional website. By
>whose standards? By standards I mean objective criteria and not unfounded
>opinion. Have you actually visited that site and have you ever attempted to
>do business with them or any other ink vendor? Don't get me wrong, I'm not
>trying to get you to stop posting. I do enjoy reading your rants and
>ludicrous statements, if nothing else than for the comic effect.
>

You are 8-)
also.

>The more
>you write, the more idiotic you sound.
>

Oh Oh Now you are not 8-)

>At least while you're at the keyboard
>you aren't walking around with a loaded weapon or behind the wheel (assuming
>you're old enough for a d/l).
>

Wrong again, I write this stuff on my wireless notebook while I am on
the Freeway in traffic jams. Great Gogamooga; Letme outa here. :-*

>I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Joe @
>Alotofthings and John @ Weink are quite happy to have you out there doing
>popping off like you do. You've given them a good deal of free advertising.
>
>

Then I will send them a bill.

The one good them I know about you is that you did NOT vote for Bush.
April 26, 2005 9:53:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

Ah come on mesershit. That last post wasn't even close to entertaining.
You're not trying hard enough.
Go to your room in the basement.
No cookies.
Frank
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 10:06:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

FreePrinters.com was incorporated in 1997. We process 100's of
applications weekly. Our supplies cost is 30+% less the competing
programs. The program is only 24 months as opposed to 36 months. There
are no minimum number of prints to make each month as in other
programs.

The printer includes on-site service by a local Xerox trained
technician. http://www.freeprinters.com

We area also the only company oferring a free wide format color laser
printer program. http://www.freeprinters.com/features_C912.php


Both programs are great, you just have to ask if using genuine ink vs
compatible is worth the addtional 35% in cost, and addtional 12 months
in the agreement, and the hassle of submitting a report every month or
getting fined.


Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <1114349774.020516.306410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Free Printer Guy" <dwalthers@freeprinters.com> wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > Try the Xerox Phaser 8400DP (Duplex).
> >
> > http://www.FreePrinters.com/
>
> Or, instead of doing it third party, do it directly from Xerox:
>
> http://www.freecolorprinters.com
>
> No third party to worry about going belly-up or sending you
overpriced
> third-world supplies. And the Xerox deal includes Xerox service;
whose
> service, if any, does "Free Printer Guy" include?
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:50:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frank wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
> Ah come on mesershit. That last post wasn't even close to entertaining.
> You're not trying hard enough.
> Go to your room in the basement.
> No cookies.
> Frank


Ah but I will whack off my Frank.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:20:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Another spamming whore.

I am sure that many on this NG will defend him also.

Free Printer Guy wrote:

>FreePrinters.com was incorporated in 1997. We process 100's of
>applications weekly. Our supplies cost is 30+% less the competing
>programs. The program is only 24 months as opposed to 36 months. There
>are no minimum number of prints to make each month as in other
>programs.
>
>The printer includes on-site service by a local Xerox trained
>technician. http://www.freeprinters.com
>
>We area also the only company oferring a free wide format color laser
>printer program. http://www.freeprinters.com/features_C912.php
>
>
>Both programs are great, you just have to ask if using genuine ink vs
>compatible is worth the addtional 35% in cost, and addtional 12 months
>in the agreement, and the hassle of submitting a report every month or
>getting fined.
>
>
>Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>
>>In article <1114349774.020516.306410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Free Printer Guy" <dwalthers@freeprinters.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Daniel,
>>>
>>>Try the Xerox Phaser 8400DP (Duplex).
>>>
>>>http://www.FreePrinters.com/
>>>
>>>
>>Or, instead of doing it third party, do it directly from Xerox:
>>
>>http://www.freecolorprinters.com
>>
>>No third party to worry about going belly-up or sending you
>>
>>
>overpriced
>
>
>>third-world supplies. And the Xerox deal includes Xerox service;
>>
>>
>whose
>
>
>>service, if any, does "Free Printer Guy" include?
>>
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 27, 2005 6:39:34 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

replies posted inline
--
Ron Cohen

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FHkbe.6945$J12.3768@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>Weink has responded as to who manufactures their ink and are you
>>absolutely certain that Alotofthings doesn't state who makes their ink?
>
> Go to their website. Edit, copy and past the info if you can find it into
> a post. I would like to see it. As for WeStink, he was spamming this NG
> by providing info under the guise for free until I exposed him. He then
> admitted he is doing it to increase sales and is not doing it out of the
> goodness of his heart that he does not have.
>

Thanks for the opening. You certainly fell for that one.
This is from the home page of their website:
"All of the bulk inks and refill kits we carry contain ink manufactured by
Sensient Imaging Technologies, Formulabs Division - also known as Formulabs
for short. Distributed by TrueColor Imaging.
Let me repeat for those who do not understand:
ALL OF THE BULK INKS AND REFILL KITS WE CARRY CONTAIN INK BY SENSIENT
IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES, FORMULABS DIVISION. "

The following is from the warranty page of their website:
"We use Sensient Imaging Technologies, Formulabs Divisions Inks exclusively
and have had no issues related to quality of ink formulation once the refill
process has been worked out.

Our inks are used by professional photographers, hundreds of business,
schools and tens of thousands or home users world wide. Our inks have won a
variety of print awards in various categories and are recommended by dozens
or computer printer users groups and online printer forums.

We would like to point out that Sensient Imaging Technologies, Formulabs
Division also sells ink directly to the OEM market (original equipment
manufacture). "


> Because these people were exposed and because the fact you patronize these
> people makes many on this ng look like fools. well I can understand why
> you are pissed off. But like the old saying goes, it is better to be
> pissed off than pissed on.
Not p/o'ed at all since the above statement has no basis in reality.
>
>>So far that's what you claim. And you refer to these two highly respected
>>vendors as whores. The following quotes are from your posting below "Most
>>do not put in writing what they say. I call these whores." and "Now for
>>the record - alotofcrap and WeStink are whores in the business" Once
>>again, are you absolutely certain that Alotofthings doesn't state on their
>>website who makes their ink?
>>
>
> As of a week ago yes. And they do not have a webstore on their site.
> They sell on eBay.
Completely wrong again. Alotofthings has for at least for the 2 1/2 years
I've done business with them stated on their website that they use Formulabs
ink exclusively. They do have a webstore in addition to the eBay store.
However the eBay store has better prices.

>
>>You continually defame Alotofthings as having an unprofessional website.
>>By whose standards? By standards I mean objective criteria and not
>>unfounded opinion. Have you actually visited that site and have you ever
>>attempted to do business with them or any other ink vendor? Don't get me
>>wrong, I'm not trying to get you to stop posting. I do enjoy reading your
>>rants and ludicrous statements, if nothing else than for the comic effect.
>
Seems like you have a little trouble answering this one. It is obvious
you've never explored the website. Do so and then post a detailed critique.
It'll be entertaining to see how inaccurate it will be.

> You are 8-) also.
>
>>The more you write, the more idiotic you sound.
>
> Oh Oh Now you are not 8-)
>
>>At least while you're at the keyboard you aren't walking around with a
>>loaded weapon or behind the wheel (assuming you're old enough for a d/l).
>
> Wrong again, I write this stuff on my wireless notebook while I am on the
> Freeway in traffic jams. Great Gogamooga; Letme outa here. :-*
>
Every noticed how all the other lanes are moving except yours?

>>I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Joe @ Alotofthings and John @
>>Weink are quite happy to have you out there doing popping off like you do.
>>You've given them a good deal of free advertising.
>>
>
> Then I will send them a bill.
They might even pay you with some ink.

>
> The one good them I know about you is that you did NOT vote for Bush.
Wrong again. I proudly support President Bush!
April 27, 2005 6:39:35 AM

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ron Cohen wrote:

> replies posted inline
Whoaa...Ron scores a direct hit on Medicate. I bet that hurt! :-)
Frank
!