Photo file rename by to date and time taken

In article , John Turco
wrote:

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.

Nevertheless, I still prefer working in "Windows Explorer."

why? what is there that windows explorer does better than apps designed
specifically for image management?

I'm just used to it...and there are some things it can do, that an
"asset manager" can't.

such as what?

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
John has not stated that Windows Explorer does anything better.
All he's said is that he prefers to work in Windows Explorer.
Heresy.

Sandman:
Is it supposed "heresy" or is it a "rant"? Not sure which Andreas
to believe here.

I know you have problems using English

Most ironic thing you've written this week. Especially as a response to a post
where I pointed out your ignorance with regards to the word "imply" yet again. Of
course you had to snip that one out as you always do.

but also in reading English?
Or is it you don't know what the word "heresy" means?

nospam rants. John's position is heresy.

According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John posted heresy,
Andreas jumped in to claim that according to nospam it's supposed "heresy", but
then again, you also posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really something to be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of the language.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
John has not stated that Windows Explorer
does anything better. All he's said is that he prefers to
work in Windows Explorer. Heresy.

Sandman:
Is it supposed "heresy" or is it a "rant"? Not sure
which Andreas to believe here.

Andreas Skitsnack:
I know you have problems using English

Sandman:
Most ironic thing you've written this week. Especially as a
response to a post where I pointed out your ignorance with
regards to the word "imply" yet again. Of course you had to snip
that one out as you always do.

It was snipped because it's a non-starter as a discussion point.

"Discussion" is not possible with you, so that was never an option.

Your complaint is without merit.

No "complaint" present, only statement of fact.

Andreas Skitsnack:
but also in reading English? Or is it you don't know what the
word "heresy" means?

nospam rants. John's position is heresy.

Sandman:
According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John
posted heresy, Andreas jumped in to claim that according to
nospam it's supposed "heresy", but then again, you also posted
that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a simple question, so
your description of any given event isn't really something to be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of
the language.

Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over your
head and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed "it" to
both "heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same source.

Great example of a description of an event from you that has no relation to
reality. Thanks.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant
will follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

Funny, I've only seen nospam "rant" when people posts incorrect information about
something. But I'm sure you're going to back that claim up with many examples -
you just forgot to do so in this post. Ooops!

The heresy involved is the position that someone can prefer to be
content in using Windows Explorer for their own needs.

Thus, the "rant" (i.e. the question "why?"). You have a funny dictionary, no news
there.

--
Sandman

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

but also in reading English?
Or is it you don't know what the word "heresy" means?

nospam rants. John's position is heresy.

According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John posted
heresy,
Andreas jumped in to claim that according to nospam it's supposed "heresy",
but
then again, you also posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a
simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really something to
be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of the language.

Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over your head
and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed "it" to both
"heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same source.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant will
follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to it
(which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset managers
can't.

i asked what those were, since i can't think of a single thing an app
that isn't designed for asset management can do than one that is
designed for that task.

maybe he's unaware of the benefits of using an app designed
specifically for managing assets. it could have been a learning
experience for him and others.

that is until you stepped in with your usual bull**** and rants, trying
to turn it into yet another flame fest.

The heresy involved is the position that someone can prefer to be
content in using Windows Explorer for their own needs.

they only think it fits their needs because they don't know about other
alternatives. as he said, he's used to it. that means he hasn't tried
other options.

again, you want people to live in a cave and be stuck doing the same
old thing forever, never moving forward and never learning new and
better ways of doing things.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John posted
heresy,
Andreas jumped in to claim that according to nospam it's supposed
"heresy",
but
then again, you also posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a
simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really something to
be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of the
language.

Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over your head
and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed "it" to both
"heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same source.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant will
follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to it
(which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset managers
can't.

See? Here we are. What he wants to do is "not a good reason". That's
a rant. A mini-rant from you, but a rant.

asking questions is not a rant.

being used to something means unwilling to learn new things. maybe the
alternatives are better or maybe not, but dismissing them *before*
evaluating them is not a good reason. it's being lazy. that's just how
it is.

i asked what those were, since i can't think of a single thing an app
that isn't designed for asset management can do than one that is
designed for that task.

maybe he's unaware of the benefits of using an app designed
specifically for managing assets. it could have been a learning
experience for him and others.

that is until you stepped in with your usual bull**** and rants, trying
to turn it into yet another flame fest.

The heresy involved is the position that someone can prefer to be
content in using Windows Explorer for their own needs.

they only think it fits their needs because they don't know about other
alternatives. as he said, he's used to it. that means he hasn't tried
other options.

again, you want people to live in a cave and be stuck doing the same
old thing forever, never moving forward and never learning new and
better ways of doing things.

I knew you'd manage a rant sooner or later.

that's not a rant either.

i wrote that in response to your bull****. if you kept quiet, it could
have been a productive discussion. you ruined it again.

On 8/26/15 PDT 2:13 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:29:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John posted
heresy,
Andreas jumped in to claim that according to nospam it's supposed
"heresy",
but
then again, you also posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a
simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really something to
be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of the
language.

Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over your head
and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed "it" to both
"heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same source.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant will
follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to it
(which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset managers
can't.

See? Here we are. What he wants to do is "not a good reason". That's
a rant. A mini-rant from you, but a rant.

asking questions is not a rant.

being used to something means unwilling to learn new things. maybe the
alternatives are better or maybe not, but dismissing them *before*
evaluating them is not a good reason. it's being lazy. that's just how
it is.

Let me guess...you copped that bit from the Ashley Madison website.

wrote that in response to your bull****. if you kept quiet, it could
ave been a productive discussion. you ruined it again.

That's a lie. You wanted an argument, as usual, and when John didn't
provide grounds you unleashed a rant anyway.

John seems to like his current workflow and seems to be satifisfied
with what he's doing. It's none of your business that he doesn't
chose to pursue other options, but you call him lazy for not doing so.

You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.


Who is this "John" to whom you refer?

On 8/26/2015 7:02 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 8/26/15 PDT 2:13 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 14:29:18 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John
posted
heresy,
Andreas jumped in to claim that according to nospam it's supposed
"heresy",
but
then again, you also posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he
asked a
simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really
something to
be
taken seriously, which probably is due to your failing grasp of the
language.

Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over your
head
and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed "it" to both
"heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same source.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant
will
follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to it
(which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset managers
can't.

See? Here we are. What he wants to do is "not a good reason". That's
a rant. A mini-rant from you, but a rant.

asking questions is not a rant.

being used to something means unwilling to learn new things. maybe the
alternatives are better or maybe not, but dismissing them *before*
evaluating them is not a good reason. it's being lazy. that's just how
it is.

Let me guess...you copped that bit from the Ashley Madison website.

wrote that in response to your bull****. if you kept quiet, it could
ave been a productive discussion. you ruined it again.

That's a lie. You wanted an argument, as usual, and when John didn't
provide grounds you unleashed a rant anyway.

John seems to like his current workflow and seems to be satifisfied
with what he's doing. It's none of your business that he doesn't
chose to pursue other options, but you call him lazy for not doing so.

You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.


Who is this "John" to whom you refer?

I think he's talking about John Turco.

--
PeterN

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
but also in reading English? Or is it you don't know what
the word "heresy" means?

nospam rants. John's position is heresy.

Sandman:
According to nospam - according to Andreas. It's not like John
posted heresy, Andreas jumped in to claim that according to
nospam it's supposed "heresy", but then again, you also
posted that nospam would/did "rant" when he asked a simple
question, so your description of any given event isn't really
something to be taken seriously, which probably is due to
your failing grasp of the language.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Duck and weave, Popinjay. The reference to heresy went over
your head and you're trying to pretend it didn't. You ascribed
"it" to both "heresy" and "rant" as if both were from the same
source.

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a
rant will follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in
any way suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable
substitute for an asset management program in John's workflow.

nospam:
except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to
it (which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset
managers can't.

See? Here we are. What he wants to do is "not a good reason".
That's a rant. A mini-rant from you, but a rant.

So, nospam calmly telling you, not the OP, about his opinion, is a "rant"? See
yet why your grasp of the English language is so laughable?

nospam:
i asked what those were, since i can't think of a single thing an
app that isn't designed for asset management can do than one that
is designed for that task.

maybe he's unaware of the benefits of using an app designed
specifically for managing assets. it could have been a learning
experience for him and others.

that is until you stepped in with your usual bull**** and rants,
trying to turn it into yet another flame fest.

Andreas Skitsnack:
The heresy involved is the position that someone can prefer to
be content in using Windows Explorer for their own needs.

nospam:
they only think it fits their needs because they don't know about
other alternatives. as he said, he's used to it. that means he
hasn't tried other options.

again, you want people to live in a cave and be stuck doing the
same old thing forever, never moving forward and never learning
new and better ways of doing things.

I knew you'd manage a rant sooner or later.

It's ironic that you're so eager to label nospam's question and opinion as
"rants" yet can't see how your posts to this thread - posts that hasn't been on
topic, but has been lengthy posts about your opinions about one specific poster
- is most certainly a rant.

Ironic indeed.

--
Sandman

On 8/25/2015 5:49 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , John Turco
wrote:

managing photos (or any asset) via the filesystem is primitive and
inefficient. that's why asset mangers exist, which are designed and
optimized to manage assets. not only are they more efficient but they
do a lot more too. there is no downside.

Nevertheless, I still prefer working in "Windows Explorer."

why? what is there that windows explorer does better than apps designed
specifically for image management?

I'm just used to it...and there are some things it can do, that an
"asset manager" can't.

such as what?


For example, I'm able to transfer my e-mail and Usenet groups (in
"Thunderbird") to another computer, by copying the appropriate folders.

John

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Anyone who has followed this group at all understands that a rant will
follow from nospam if John makes any statement that in any way
suggests that Windows Explorer is an acceptable substitute for an
asset management program in John's workflow.

except no rant followed.

i asked why he chose to use explorer. he said because he's used to it
(which is not a good reason) and that he can do things asset managers
can't.

See? Here we are. What he wants to do is "not a good reason". That's
a rant. A mini-rant from you, but a rant.

asking questions is not a rant.

being used to something means unwilling to learn new things. maybe the
alternatives are better or maybe not, but dismissing them *before*
evaluating them is not a good reason. it's being lazy. that's just how
it is.

Let me guess...you copped that bit from the Ashley Madison website.

let me guess...nothing relevant to say so you resort to insults.

wrote that in response to your bull****. if you kept quiet, it could
ave been a productive discussion. you ruined it again.

That's a lie. You wanted an argument, as usual, and when John didn't
provide grounds you unleashed a rant anyway.

nope.

John seems to like his current workflow and seems to be satifisfied
with what he's doing.

you don't know that.

It's none of your business that he doesn't
chose to pursue other options, but you call him lazy for not doing so.

he doesn't have to pursue anything.

however, he should at least explore the various options and make an
informed decision about what works best for him rather than listen to
you who wants him to stagnate.

You have never been a participant in a productive discussion.

more of your bull****.