Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 02:40:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1172 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Inosanto writes:
> > > 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.
>
> Yes he does, as do you. I never said you do not have that right. Can you
> show me where I did say that? Please...
I find that your statements to the effect that Jon is immature for suggesting
it means you feel he is NOT within his rights.
> > > 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?
>
> Not that is is overwhelming, but it does belong.
You're not getting the point. We want a change in TOS. We realize they do
belong, we want that to change. Afterall, if something is Lego related but
violates another rule, such as nudity, they can be banned.
> > Are you even reading what we write? I sure don't see it in your replies.
>
> Yes. Too bad you do not see it.
Maybe you need to make it clear for us, then.
> > 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?
>
> Yes. One can have valid reasons for not liking something, but that does not
> translate into calling for it to be banned.
If your reasons for disliking the thing are due to it being hurtful or
disruptive, sure it is. There are plenty of other valid reasons, too.
> > > 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...
>
> You hear a broken record because it is true!! And you keep avoiding the
> simple fact that these are lego-related images and they do belong!!
Um, I have never ignored the fact that they are Lego-related. We wouldn' be
asking for a ban if they weren't Lego related, we'd be asking for better
policing. Since you don't seem to realize this, it shows me you aren't reading
our posts.
> Are you readiung what *I* am posting?
Unfortunately, yes.
> > 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...
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are actually comparing images of bionicle to the
> civil rights movemnet?!?!? LOL!!! YES!
No. I am comparing aspects of the two.
> Of course I am going to say this is a bad example, The civil rights movemnet
> had to do with people being killed, people being treated less than human!!
So? I am not talking about those aspects of the Civil Rights movement, only
the fact that the most basic reason for the movement was a dislike of
something.
> How does that compare to you having to hit 'Next'??? I can not honestly
> believe you went there, this is such a bad example it is beyond words. Really,
> how does it compare???
Again, I am NOT comparing the two. I am invalidating your statement that
dislike is no reason to call for a ban.
> And yes, I have asked for items to be removed, but when it was inapproite
> for the forum. If people were posting nude images, or images from the faces
> of death videos, then I would be the first to stand up and say get rid of
> them, because children veiw this. Not because I do not like something.
Actually, you'd only be calling for removal of such things because you dislike
them/the idea of kids viewing them. ;)
> And MM was different also, more along the lines than the Civil Rights
> Movment reference was, but still - different from bionicle images. MM was
> acting innapropriate for this forum. And my thoughts on him will be posted
> in a different thread if you ask.
But one could ignore his posts. In addition, not everyone felt MM's posts were
totally innapropriate, I'm sure. And I feel avatar images are innapropriate.
> I said this elsewhere, but will re-post it.
> If you are truly concerned about the mis-use of brickshelf, then go after
> non-lego images.
I will, but that isn't the topic of this thread. In fact, I plan to speak to
Kevin about it privately. However, non-lego images are *not* flooding
Brickshelf.
> But as long as yu try to ban lego images I will be very vocal on how you are
> wrong (unless Kevin agrees with you, but untill then I speak).
But some Lego images HAVE been banned. do you think they shouldn't be?
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
