Subject:
|
Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 05:17:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1854 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Kevin Loch writes:
> In lugnet.publish, Joseph Williams writes:
> > Why is it that the good Reverend has everyone of his folders moderated?
> > Rev's gallery: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=revbps
>
> I manually set aside all of his folders for further review. Therefore,
> they are not unmoderated, but they are not yet public either. I'm
> sure that's no problem for Brendan, since he deep links to them
> on his website.
Why?
Why set them aside for further review?
What is in question?
I've seen his pictures, they're not pornographic. The majority deals with the
bible and it's topics, and does not every christian church give free and full
access of the bible to children? I've read your 'guidelines' you posted in
direct response to the original post, and this content does not go against
either. It is safe for children, at least the 1 billion Christians would say
it is, it's on topic with lego, as it is made of lego (albeit some of it has
been modified), and it doesn't even infringe on any copyright.
I guess it could be a politcal move, the seperation of church and Brickshelf...
But you flat out denied any sort of anti-political intentions.
But it would seem to me that what you're really saying is that your guidelines
are missing a line. "Are the pictures 'safe' for kids and is it 'safe' for the
rest of the 'politically correct' world?"
> I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax and wait
> for us to catch up on moderation.
>
> KL
I have taken a breath. And this is the question I came up with. Please...
PLEASE correct me if am mistaken in what is staring me in the face. Go ahead
and flame me if that's what makes you happy.
--Anthony
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
| (...) You forgot to add IMHO or IMO to that sentence. (Note that I'm not claiming that they are, but I certainly now people who might think that). (...) I don't think the bible as endorsed by most Christian churches necessarily contains pictures. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
| (...) He has uploaded a handful of images in the past that were not (according to me). Therefore I want to carefully review all of them to make sure they are all kid-safe. The subject matter (the Bible) deals with alot of very adult topics that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
| Regarding the Brick Testament being under review: In lugnet.publish, Anthony Sava writes: <snip> (...) Well, I'll take a crack at correcting you. Firstly, despite the fact that minifigs do not have genitalia, that does not mean it is not possible to (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Brickmania withdraws from Brickshelf
|
| (...) they are not unmoderated, but they are not yet public either. I'm sure that's no problem for Brendan, since he deep links to them on his website. I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax and wait for us to catch up on moderation. (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
70 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
