Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 21:05:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1996 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeff Stembel writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> > > Its easy. And your hideous, pixelated garbage is others treasure (not mine,
> > > but thats not the point).
> >
> > Perhaps, but I can't see how anyone looking at the Brickshelf Recent page can
> > see it as such.
>
> Ouch, is that how you treat everything you do not like? Tell me, what
> product line of Lego do you like... lets trash that, as well as your work
> for awhile - ok?? Thats what you are doing here....
I can only imagine you are confusing my opinion on avatar images (and I include
all avatar images, not just Bionicle ones) with my opinion on Bionicle MOCs.
I have not bashed any Lego line in this thread, nor have I bashed any MOCs.
Whether I like Bionicle or not doesn't enter in to my opinion of the avatar
images.
> > I constitute that as being "drowned out." Besides, when you check it less
> > often, you have even more pages to check. I've had to go eight to ten pages • at
> > times to get to stuff I've seen when I used to go two or three, and that was
> > checking once a day. Now it is far more likely to wait a day or two longer,
> > which means even MORE pages I need to check. When the number of pages you • need
> > to check more than doubles, I'd certainly say the content is being drowned
> out.
>
> If it is still there, then it is not being drowned out, its just being
> joined. When you drown something out you overtake it and hide it from view.
> Nothing is being hidden from your view. It seems you are saying you are too
> lazy to pass these up and hit the 'next' button.
Tim Courtney answered this one quite well, so I don't think I need to go into
it any more.
> > However, he does see Bionicle MOCs as valid content. What he has a problem
> > with is the Bionicle Avatar images that he feels are ugly and disruptive.
> > These images are only used on forums to give posters a "self-portrait," • rather
> > than show off new and interesting building ideas or some such.
>
> In his opinion they are ugly and whatever. But does that mean they should be
> banned. I personally do not like the 2001 racer sets - so does that mean
> they should be banned?
Do you honestly think they should be banned? If so, go right ahead and post
it. I rather doubt you'll get much support, however.
> > Um, no. Asking for a ban IS expressing an opinion. If asking for a ban is
> > immature, isn't asking for something to NOT be banned, which is what you're
> > doing, just as immature?
>
> No, saying you do not like them is stating an opinion. Calling for
> banishment is not an opinion.
Um, is asking for a ban going against a fact or statement to the effect that
people should not ask for bans of items on Brickshelf? If not, it is
absolutely an opinion.
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
