 | | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I thought his tirade had some valid points, though clouded in negative emotions. (Thanks for pointing me back there to look, BTW.) To paraphrase, he made the following points: 1. Apologized to his bidders for the non-functional image. 2. (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) In a fairly bitchy little way. :) (...) Hrmmmm, assumptions, relying on ignorance, and multiple wrongs possibly making a right, all roled into one. :) (...) That's the only really legitimate thing I think he said, and you can solve that (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) I agree with all of the above (in principle); those were some of my first thoughts as well. But like I said before, "All of these [gripes of his] are tangible concerns which are likely to resurface again and again among the general Internet (...) (25 years ago, 7-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
#6 is not valid. Or at least it was not. There are sites that exist specifically to host auction images, which do so for free. (I think they tack an advert on the bottom of the image or something). (25 years ago, 8-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Cracking down on unauthorized image links
|
|
(...) Oh, I think a _Nasty_ graphic would have been more fun. alt.binaries.images.tasteless - the seller would have really had something to whine about if you had been out to harm him. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
