Subject:
|
Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.suggestions
|
Date:
|
Thu, 29 May 2003 14:13:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1456 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Tim Courtney wrote:
| |
Watchful concerned community members who are willing to kindly guide and
inform abusers.
|
Abusers sounds like such a nasty word. If someone embedded a 6000x6000-pixel
Hubble Telescope image 10 times in a row as a prank, that would be abuse. If
someone wanted a sig image just a little bit bigger than “normal,” would that be
abuse?
| |
| |
| |
and avatars to no larger than 75x75,
|
What about 50x80?
|
If you prefer :-)
|
Oh I meant: If the rule was no larger than 75x75, what would you think if
someone used 50x80? 120x60? 200x20? --Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) If not abuse, what would it be? It would be a violation of netiquette, so after the "abuser" is made aware of such guidelines, further violations would at the least be considered rude. Perhaps they aren't an 'abuser' until they're conscious (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Signature Image Abuse
|
| (...) Watchful concerned community members who are willing to kindly guide and inform abusers. (...) If you prefer :-) (...) See above. (...) So, no animations, unless they're porn? ;-) (...) :-P Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit negative. I (...) (21 years ago, 29-May-03, to lugnet.admin.suggestions, FTX)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
