Reactions from THAT post
Posted by InUtero on July 12, 2002 at 12:34:05: Previous Next
Hey, Thanks for all the comments.
I have done what you said about the pic, check out the new one...
http://www.dexglobal.com/thcs/buzzboard/posts/12942.html
See you people around, I also sent in a complaint to the board but I can't see anything happening about it.
Again, check this:
http://www.dexglobal.com/thcs/buzzboard/posts/12942.html
and thanks guys.
James
hahahaha good job
Posted by j.s. on July 12, 2002 at 12:40:52: Previous Next
In Reply to: Reactions from THAT post posted by InUtero on July 12, 2002 at 12:34:05:
you showed restraint in your photo choice- i would have dug up something more shocking... and probably created a worse problem.
Re: hahahaha good job
Posted by InUtero on July 12, 2002 at 12:45:03: Previous Next
In Reply to: hahahaha good job posted by j.s. on July 12, 2002 at 12:40:52:
It'l do.
Utero is living in a paranoid world!
Posted by Draco on July 12, 2002 at 14:24:32: Previous Next
In Reply to: hahahaha good job posted by j.s. on July 12, 2002 at 12:40:52:
: you showed restraint in your photo choice- i would have dug up something more shocking... and probably created a worse problem.
It worked ... however, people will want to go to http://aparanoidworld.netfirms.com/jamesphotos.htm and they will wonder what that Billy Goat is doing there. Also, what is to stop those hair-cut mongers from using OTHER photos from that web-site or web-page? Will A-Paranoid-World being nothing but rotten.com pictures? Now, that is, in fact, A PARANOID WORLD!
Re: InUtero got your goat
Posted by j.s. on July 13, 2002 at 04:49:16: Previous Next
In Reply to: Utero is living in a paranoid world! posted by Draco on July 12, 2002 at 14:24:32:
he can make the goat pic clickable to his real photo or whatever.... he can maintain 2 seperate image folders with identical filenames but different images then just edit the image source code in his page to the appropriate directory route & switch images when mad hatter links to anything on his site.
meanwhile, maybe there's a script out there that victor can use to block direct linking to images here from another site.
Re: InUtero got your goat
Posted by Skarred Orange on July 13, 2002 at 06:56:28: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: InUtero got your goat posted by j.s. on July 13, 2002 at 04:49:16:
: he can make the goat pic clickable to his real photo or whatever.... he can maintain 2 seperate image folders with identical filenames but different images then just edit the image source code in his page to the appropriate directory route & switch images when mad hatter links to anything on his site.
: meanwhile, maybe there's a script out there that victor can use to block direct linking to images here from another site.
Then add a no right click javascript.
Re: InUtero got your tripod
Posted by Draco on July 14, 2002 at 03:03:42: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: InUtero got your goat posted by j.s. on July 13, 2002 at 04:49:16:
: he can make the goat pic clickable to his real photo or whatever.... he can maintain 2 seperate image folders with identical filenames but different images then just edit the image source code in his page to the appropriate directory route & switch images when mad hatter links to anything on his site.
: meanwhile, maybe there's a script out there that victor can use to block direct linking to images here from another site.
I.U. should open a tripod.com web-site. This way, the BuzzBoard only gets the tripod.com logo!
Re: hahahaha good restraint
Posted by Draco on July 14, 2002 at 00:48:05: Previous Next
In Reply to: hahahaha good job posted by j.s. on July 12, 2002 at 12:40:52:
: you showed restraint in your photo choice — i would have dug up something more shocking… and probably created a worse problem…
… which could have violated § 3-d of NetFirm's Terms of Service!
COULD have
Posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 04:05:58: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: hahahaha good restraint posted by Draco on July 14, 2002 at 00:48:05:
... but not necessarily so. i don't see where the violation is with showing a photo of, say, an autopsy.
their misuse of our photos is an invitation for abuse. emily post says it's very impolite to refuse invitations.
Re: COULD have
Posted by Draco on July 14, 2002 at 10:38:15: Previous Next
In Reply to: COULD have posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 04:05:58:
: … but not necessarily so. i don't see where the violation is with showing a photo of, say, an autopsy.
So I noticed … The only things that seem to be prohibited are "nudity or pornography" and "content that exploits children under 18 years of age" which is not necessarily sexual. Also, everythings goes as long as it's not "hate propaganda" nor "racist, threatening, or otherwise abusive content."
What I was worried about was the definition of "obscenity," which was left to the LOCALITIES per Supreme Court ruling almost three decades ago. How do you know that some small country TOWN won't be up-in-arms over what they saw in Utero's web-site?
ob-scene adj.
1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
3. Offensive or repulsive to the senses; loathsome. —ob-scene-ly adv.
Re: COULD have
Posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 10:57:05: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: COULD have posted by Draco on July 14, 2002 at 10:38:15:
aaaahh yes, except that i doubt there's such a localities-based standard applied to anything posted on the wwweb.
whether or not a small town yokel gets up in arms about InUtero's site is immaterial with regards to supreme court rulings as it's jurisdiction does not extend across the atlantic ocean to england.
Re: COULD have
Posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 11:01:08: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: COULD have posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 10:57:05:
....and netfirms is canadian.
Re: COULD have under the CDA
Posted by Draco on July 19, 2002 at 00:17:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: COULD have posted by j.s. on July 14, 2002 at 10:57:05:
: aaaahh yes, except that i doubt there's such a localities-based standard applied to anything posted on the wwweb.
: whether or not a small town yokel gets up in arms about InUtero's site is immaterial with regards to supreme court rulings as it's jurisdiction does not extend across the atlantic ocean to england.
Now, aren't you glad that the Communications Decency Act didn't pass?