Posted by Justin on 03/21/06 15:46

Roy L Fuchs wrote on [Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:26:40 GMT]:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:44:35 -0000, "James"
> <jamesspamtrap@mourby.plusspam.com.invalid> Gave us:
>
>>
>>"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
>>news:8q8q12dkg3tmlo11o9apu43l6laduboamn@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:13:37 -0500, Rich <none@none.com> Gave us:
>>>
>>>>Well, after 8 years and no problems (900 discs or so owned, 1000
>>>>rented) I finally had a DVD deteriorate on me. The movie was "Trinity
>>>>and Beyond" The Atomic Bomb Movie. A terrific documentary on the
>>>>development of the atomic and hydrogen bombs. Done by Peter Kuran.
>>>>The DVD company is VCE so I emailed them to see if they'd be willing
>>>>to replace it.
>>>>
>>>>The DVD surface appears to have something like a watermark on it.
>>>>It looks subsurface to me.
>>>>Here's a screen shot of what this looks like;
>>>>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57346298
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two things. First, your image is fouled, and does not show the
>>> picture you took at all. Do you not even test your own web pages?
>>>
>>> Second, if the disc's optical read surface has ANY scratches on it AT
>>> ALL from where you have placed it on a surface or in a sleeve, it is
>>> your fault.
>>>
>>> RULE NUMBER ONE for optical disc storage mediums is that the read
>>> surface should NEVER be touched. That is regardless of the fact that
>>> they are generally forgiving of such handling. There are only two
>>> locations that are valid for an optical disc. In its storage
>>> container, and in the playback /reader device's loading tray.
>>>
>>> If ANY contact is made with the read surface and it becomes scratched
>>> or smudged, it IS operator error if it subsequently fails to read.
>>>
>>> That said, you need to re-snap the picture, and re-load it onto your
>>> web page.
>>>
>>> If you are in the habit of placing discs onto flat surfaces other
>>> than one of the two aforementioned locations, then you deserve
>>> everything you (DON'T) get.
>>
>>Way to have a go at someone who says it looks SUB-surface.
>>
> Note that the FIRST remark I posted was about how his image is not
> viewable. If I could see the photograph, perhaps I wouldn't have
> given the primer.

The image was a screenshot of what he was seeing on screen, I believe.

[Back to original message]