 | | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
Briefly addressing a couple of things, Kevin is your authoritative source... (...) I did not delete this one. But I DID look at it pretty hard, several times and marked it "unsure" each time. NOT beccause it's porn. An image of a very pretty girl (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
Without knowing the details on how the moderating works, it does worry me a bit that this image was visible on Brickshelf and accessible from the Recent folder for some non-trivial length of time. In view of the massive unavailability of folders (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Censorship and public relations (was: Brickshelf problems?)
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in news:GyF7IL.I35@lugnet.com... (...) for (...) Some of the best photos on brickshelf are (were?) spoofed ads or packages. I wonder why someone can show splattered, blood covered bodies of minfigs (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
"Constantine Hannaher" <channaher@netscape.net> wrote in news:GyFAJB.490@lugnet.com... (...) then (...) The image was visible only to me and not public. (...) other (...) that (...) manufacturer (...) Look closer. The ice cream is made of bricks. If (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) That is not true, and is the point of my posting at all. I did see this image in the recent folder at Brickshelf yesterday. It was public. This has more to do with Brickshelf than with you... (...) Or if you had uploaded at least one image of (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) I must agree with Oliver on this point: the MOC would completely lose its interest if not inserted in the picture. I had the chance to see (and download) the manipulated ad, and quite frankly I can't see why everyone is so concerned... It is (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) download) (...) to (...) Let's try that again: Or if you had uploaded at least one image of the _(_MOC by itself_)_, [instead of] _in addition to its placement_ inside a derivative work (term of art in the copyright field)... On the other (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) That I do understand, and agree. As an addition, it would definately make sense. (...) Yes, I realized that when I hit post - I keep forgetting LEGO is very brand-aware... :-) It might have been advisable to include a disclaimer, in tiny (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) You cannot say that for sure. (...) My main concern and why I kept voting "unsure" was that this parody has the LEGO(r) logo on it. I really don't want to see a huge debate break out about this. It's been discussed in some depth before that (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) <SNIP> (...) <SNIP> Sorry to nit-pick, and maybe I'm just badgering the point, and maybe the images were changed before they were uploaded. But the enhanced image that I saw (as I did not look at these images until after they were re-uploaded) (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Yes you are, and yes they were. The original image had the LEGO logo in it not a parody. But even the parody is a technical violation of the fairplay document... one that lots of people do (similar parodies or distortions that is) but a (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Lar, Less typing, more clicking. I want everyone to be able to see my pics soon. ;-) Jude FUT .o-t.debate cause it ain't worth it even though you are right (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Why would a company feel upset about free advertising? I mean, it is not as if the picture was in any way an insult to the ice-cream... I agree I cannot tell for sure that they *won't* feel hurt, but what I said is *it is unlikely* they'll (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> That's all plowed ground, I am not going to debate it here. (...) If I understand your question the answer of late is: Orbital - 2 Chemical Brothers - Exit Planet Dust Paul Oakenfold - Tranceport or (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) I did not know that - please apologize the persistence :-( (...) Huh... rythm, as in "the average pace in which you (reviewer) review files". I should have used "review" instead of "analysis", but the first does not exist in my native language (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Ah. OK. The answer is it depends. External factors: How fast does the page load? That's driven by the network load. I have a cable modem connection to the internet and a 100 Mbps internal network. During the day the network is loaded because (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Careful... How do you know that the name at the top of the folder is the person who uploaded each file? KL (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Um, I'm assuming that I found the right person by looking their name up, and I'm walking their tree. If the folders I see there when I start don't match up with what I expect to see (because I know who they are and what they put there (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: Brickshelf problems?
|
|
(...) Since your doing some mammoth overhaul on Brickshelf right now, I was wondering if you could implement a new browsing feature: by member number. Is there some sort of privacy policy that would break if it was available? I know I would be using (...) (22 years ago, 29-Jun-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
