3rd Party Ink - PC World Excerpts

[ME]

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

In message <jb54a15at65m1i3c07edi44k9dn4aet5j5@4ax.com>, Hecate
<hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 08:23:58 +0100, "me@privacy.net" <me@Privacy.Net>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <kjc1a1tddka13c4olp4mqgekjqp0ghu0ru@4ax.com>, Hecate
>><hecate@newsguy.com> writes
>>>I have yet to see one that can match the output from high end Epson,
>>>Canon or HP printers. I';d agree that they can match the output of
>>>Lexmark inkjets, but then so can a dot matrix...
>>
>>It depends on the circumstances. I would say that laser photos on cheap
>>paper are better than inkjet on cheap paper.
>
>
>Define cheap paper.

£2 or less per ream.

--
Timothy

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org>
wrotenews:x7oke.1454115$Xk.1139964@pd7tw3no:

> Gee, I must have missed this announcement. Dell bought Lexmark?
>
> Please supply some references.
>
> Art
>


Do your own reseaerch ya lazy git.

--
---Mapanari---

 

[Guest]

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

As with everything else you've posted, you are WRONG.

This time try doing some research from some sources other than your
usual supply of misguided souls.

Interesting tactic, however, since you cannot offer a legitimate source
for your information. Lexmark was NOT purchased by Dell. And to save
you the trouble, BIIIZZZ... here's the correct answer...

Dell has licensed Lexmark to make printers under the Dell name which
require specialized cartridges which are only available through Dell.

Dell decided that since the money is in the ink and toner sales, and
they were selling or bundling more printers than most big box store
chains and getting none of the ink revenues, they tried getting the
inkjet printer companies to guarantee a percentage of the ink and toner
sale revenues returned to Dell. The printer manufacturers wouldn't do
it, so Dell approached Lexmark and dropped the sale of a number of other
brands of printers.

Now go back to your cloning experiments and work on cloning yourself a
new brain, when you find the time between being a special ops expert for
the air force, writing psych texts, being an expert on electronic music
keyboards, and, oh, yes, being a forensic expert on SUV tires.

One thing about you eugenics guys, when you aren't obsessing about your
genital size, you are busy exaggerating about just about everything
else. It does make for rather humorous banter, but it is terribly off
topic. Now, please.... go away!

Art

Mapanari wrote:

> Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org>
> wrotenews:x7oke.1454115$Xk.1139964@pd7tw3no:
>
>
>>Gee, I must have missed this announcement. Dell bought Lexmark?
>>
>>Please supply some references.
>>
>>Art
>>
>
>
>
> Do your own reseaerch ya lazy git.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Ron,

I just responded to his inanity similarly to how you did. I tried to do
it in baby steps, but I was unaware he has been living this delusion for
a while now. I own IBM stock, and owned it when Lexmark was spun off so
I recall the process pretty well.

Mapanari's philosophy seems to be "don't let the facts get in the way of
my ignorance".

I guess it best to just let him live in his fantasy world.

Art


Ron Cohen wrote:

> The following is from a reply I made to one of your posts last April where
> you made the same incorrect claim about Dell owning Lexmark. Lexmark has
> made printers which have been rebadged under several well know names -
> Compaq and Xerox are two I recall in addition to Dell, but there are more.
>
> IBM did not sell Lexmark to Michael Dell. Lexmark was a spin-off from IBM in
> 1991 and sold to a New York investment group headed by Dubilier & Rice, Inc.
> It is now publicly traded on the NYSE. However, Dell, Inc. is marketing the
> POS inkjets under the Dell label.
>
> Lexmark was and is a publicly traded corporation. It is not owned by Dell.
> The NYSE ticker symbol is LXK. See the following link from the Lexmark web
> site.
> http://www.lexmark.com/uncomplicate/sequentialem/home/0,7070,204816596_237474721_0_en,00.html
>

 

[Guest]

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

Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@mvps.org>
wrotenews:tQyxe.1852224$Xk.1027775@pd7tw3no:

> You are truly a bigger idiot than I mistakenly gave you credit for.
>
> Lexmark was an IBM company which was spun off as a separate private
> entity. Lexmark is now a functional separate company making, among
> other things.... LEXMARK printers. They are sold under the.... LEXMARK
> name. They make inkjet and laser printers, both color and B&W.
>
> They sell those printers to many big box and other stores, including
> Walmart, Staples, Costco, Super Store/Loblaws, Radio Shack, Zellers,
> CompuSmart, Best Buys/Future Shop and may others. They ALSO sell to
> Dell under contract. The ones Dell sold used to be called Lexmark
> printers. Now, Lexmark makes printers for Dell which are basically some
> of the same basic printers they make for other retailers, with slight
> cartridge design differences, so Dell can sell the cartridges as unique
> to their printers, so Dell can profit more from the sale of the ink
> cartridges. These rebadged printers are sold by Dell under the Dell
> name. Lexmark is owned by .... drum roll please.... Lexmark. Just like
> Epson is owned by Epson, and Canon is owned by Canon and HP is owned by
> HP.
>
> In this case, Dell is one client of Lexmark's, who contracts them to
> make a rebadged product. Dell also has other brands of goods from other
> manufacturers rebadged for them, and Dell doesn't own those companies
> either. Dell also sells other companies' products under the original
> companies' names. Dell doesn't own them either.

You are correct and I am wrong.

I think I hate Michael Dell so much it clouds my judgement. I get the same
way when I think of OJ, Kenneth Lay, Hillary Clinton and Pol Pot.

>

> You're hopeless. And you really do have an obsession about genitalia
> and their substitutes don't you?

I like genetialia. Especially wet, slippery, tight female ones without
their hunge hanging folds of well-used grey labia skin hanging down between
their knees.
Why do you want to know? Got something I would like?

>
> Has anyone ever told you you're cute when you get out of control and
> your language skills end up in the gutter? If they did, they lied.

I am cute. Me, myself and I think so.

>
> Art
>
> Mapanari wrote:
>



--
---Mapanari---