Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:14:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1228 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> 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
Tim certainly can determine what he thinks is a quality MOC. He could have
dropped the word "quality" and it would have been valid.
> and what had a right to be on brickshelf..
You're right, Tim doesn't have the right to determine what is allowed on
Brickshelf. He DOES, however, have the right to ask Kevin to change his
policy.
> And there is not an overwhelming amount of these images, thats just you
> stretching the facts to gan points for you.
It is overwhelming to Jon, Tim, me, and a number of other people. The fact
that you don't share our feelings does not negate our opinion. Or is your
opionion the only one that matters?
And "gain points"? What is this, a game to you? It certainly isn't a game for
me.
> > > 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.
Not quite. Yes, you are well within your rights to disagree with us. However,
unlike you, we are not calling you immature for voicing your disagreement with
our opinion on the avatar images.
> And it is as simple as hitting the 'next' button.
Are you even reading what we write? I sure don't see it in your replies.
> > > 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!
Again, I have to ask, are you actually reading our posts? One can have valid
reasons for disliking something, you know. If not, how can any complaint about
anything be valid?
> > 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.
Hey, I think I hear a broken record around here somewhere...
> > 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.
Ah, so you've never voiced a complaint on anything? Asked for something to be
removed from anywhere? The root of both actions are disliking something. The
Civil Rights movement was due to a group of people disliking their treatment by
another group, and they called for a ban on such treatment. They must've been
wrong, hmm? Now, you may claim this is a bad example again. I'll use an
example from Lugnet. Were we all wrong to complain about Matthew Moulton, who
was being disruptive in the newsgroups? I mean, we could've just ignored his
messages, I suppose...
Jeff
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| <snipped alot of old convo> (...) Maybe to you, but does that mean it is valid in my eyes? Not saying it does not, but does it mean it applies across the board? No. (...) Yes he does, as do you. I never said you do not have that right. Can you show (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
