To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 15344
15343  |  15345
Subject: 
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 22:47:51 GMT
Viewed: 
1076 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
"tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpIFL7.MEB@lugnet.com...

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.

Quality MOCs are being overtaken on Brickshelf because of the avatars.
They're not permanently hidden, but they're pushed out of the way (and
hidden from view on the main Recent page) by an overwhelming number of these
avatars.

I was unaware you were appointed to determine what is quality moc's and what
had a right to be on brickshelf.. And there is not an overwhelming amount of
these images, thats just you stretching the facts to gan points for you.

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.

Even if it were as simple as that, there's absolutely nothing wrong with him
expressing an opinion and looking for backup.  Jeff and Jon.

Agreed, but if you say that then you also must say there is nothing wrong
with what I am saying.

And it is as simple as hitting the 'next' button.

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?

Is there a flood of Racer avatars?  There's tons of things I don't like, I
don't call for their banishment.  Heck, there's a handful of *people* I
don't like, and I don't call for theirs [1] without valid reason.

But he IS calling for them to be banned because he does notlike them!!! ANd
why  - because he does not like them, and that is the only reason! Is that
valid? NO!

There's a valid reason to call for the banishment of Bionicle avatars.
There's a flood of them.  And it seems that per one person there are many
more than needed (I believe you only need one avatar for a perosnal icon).
Jon (and now Jeff) are merely expressing opinions.  If people agree, great!
If not, that's fine too!  Great thing about opinions is you don't have to
share them.

There is no flood! There is more of a flood of the cad images than these
images, but you like cad images - so thats ok right? BOTH are lego related,
and BOTH have a place on Brickshelf, like it or not.

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.

How is calling for banishment NOT an opinion?  'I think X should be banned,
and here's why' certainly looks like an opinion to me.  You certainly can't
say that John and Jeff are calling for the banishment because of an
objective fact.

I think you're the one who has to grow up.  Maybe learn to listen to others
a bit and get out of your own little world.

Well if I am in my own little world I like it just fine, I do not try to ban
something because I do nto like it, I have the maturity to pass it over. And
I am listening to others, and I am disgusted at the 'I do not like this, so
lets ban it' talk. If you do not like it, thats your right - but that does
not mean you have to ban it.
tom

-Tim

[1] For the record, I have called for banishment a few times, but not
without valid reason and the shared opinion of many others in the community.



Message has 3 Replies:
  Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
 
"tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpJGnr.Ky4@lugnet.com... (...) news:GpIFL7.MEB@lugnet.com... (...) these (...) what (...) of (...) When did I say they didn't have a right to be on Brickshelf because of that? I was unaware I was (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
 
(...) Unfornently, NO, it's NOT! I don't know about you, but I prefer to hit that button once maybe twice to catch up on what I've missed. Now though, I find myself hitting the button 5 or 6 times. Granted that isn't a lot, but it all becomes very (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
  Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
 
(...) Tim certainly can determine what he thinks is a quality MOC. He could have dropped the word "quality" and it would have been valid. (...) You're right, Tim doesn't have the right to determine what is allowed on Brickshelf. He DOES, however, (...) (22 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
 
"tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpIFL7.MEB@lugnet.com... (...) view. Quality MOCs are being overtaken on Brickshelf because of the avatars. They're not permanently hidden, but they're pushed out of the way (and hidden from view (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR