new thread
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
you showed restraint in your photo choice- i would have dug up something more shocking... and probably created a worse problem.
It'l do.
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!
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.
I.U. should open a tripod.com web-site. This way, the BuzzBoard only gets the tripod.com logo!
… which could have violated § 3-d of NetFirm's Terms of Service!
... 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.
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.
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.
....and netfirms is canadian.
Now, aren't you glad that the Communications Decency Act didn't pass?