CG vs DD, the battle rages on!

Mo · Post by Mo » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:50 pm

[AlmightyPyro] wrote:Once again I can't see that image...

I see Duffies, just no the top one.

Huh. It's hosted on Imageshack, so I don't understand why you can't see it... the others could.

Mooman · Post by **Mooman** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:50 pm

Looks like it's time for Claude to make another ribbon picture thing.

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:52 pm

I'm tired. go away.

TheBladeRoden2 · Post by **TheBladeRoden2** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:53 pm

Spriteville, USA wrote:Wow that sailor in the short shorts has a... well he's well endowed it seems.

Just what kind of navy is that?

The Gen navy borrows boats and seamen from certain cruiseliners.

Vorticus · Post by **Vorticus** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 1:59 pm

legostargalactica wrote:::salutes mcD::

your pervertedness will be remembered for generations to come!

Gentlemen... ready the 21 panty salute!

Oh my would that be a sight.

Mooman · Post by **Mooman** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:02 pm

ryclaude wrote:I'm tired. go away.

Mooman to the rescue!

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:11 pm

It appears that my severed head was... um... optical illusion. I was just dug very deep into the ground. *whistles*

Shut up!

Post by **Kisai** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:12 pm

Cookie Reinforcement wrote:
[AlmightyPyro] wrote:Once again I can't see that image... :(

I see Duffies, just no the top one.
Huh. It's hosted on Imageshack, so I don't understand why you can't see it... the others could.

Technically a lot of the images being posted probably violate the imageshack TOS, but that's besides the point. His firewall is probably stripping the referrer out and maybe imageshack requires a referrer. Who knows.

Tynan · Post by **Tynan** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:15 pm

All bow down before Kisai!

Mo · Post by Mo » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:16 pm

Kisai wrote:Technically a lot of the images being posted probably violate the imageshack TOS, but that's besides the point.

Oh. I didn't know that.

<_<

*doesn't read the fineprint*

KittyKatBlack · Post by **KittyKatBlack** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:18 pm

Cookie Reinforcement wrote:
Kisai wrote:Technically a lot of the images being posted probably violate the imageshack TOS, but that's besides the point.
Oh. I didn't know that.

<_<

*doesn't read the fineprint*

When it comes to art hosting sites you really should. The fine print is what makes me refuse to attempt to get a DeviantArt account.

Post by **STrRedWolf** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:19 pm

Kisai wrote:
Cookie Reinforcement wrote:
[AlmightyPyro] wrote:Once again I can't see that image...

I see Duffies, just no the top one.
Huh. It's hosted on Imageshack, so I don't understand why you can't see it... the others could.
Technically a lot of the images being posted probably violate the imageshack TOS, but that's besides the point. His firewall is probably stripping the referrer out and maybe imageshack requires a referrer. Who knows.

This is why I'd like to make sure DD users can have the images hosted on their servers, like CG'ers who can do so here (and I want to allow them to post them on DD too).

Post by **Mercury Hat** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:19 pm

I thought the only thing Imageshack didn't allow was adult images like nudity or graphic violence. Other than that, I think it's all fair game.

RPin · Post by **RPin** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:23 pm

When it comes to art hosting sites you really should. The fine print is what makes me refuse to attempt to get a DeviantArt account.

You people better stop that before it becomes another urban legend. Deviant Art does not steal anyone's copyright. If any serious matter should be balancing your decision on getting an account there, it is the poor quality of their servers.

CaptainClaude · Post by **CaptainClaude** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:25 pm

Mooman wrote:
ryclaude wrote:I'm tired. go away.
Mooman to the rescue!

You are neet.

Post by **Kisai** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 2:37 pm

Mercury Hat wrote:I thought the only thing Imageshack didn't allow was adult images like nudity or graphic violence. Other than that, I think it's all fair game.

Hence "Some of the images posted here probably violate the TOS" .

When it comes to TOS enforcement, it's all a matter of how power-trippy the person doing the enforcement is. When I worked for a cellular provider, everyone had their own interpretation of the TOS, including the customers, and ultimate if you got someone who english was not their first language, you got screwed because they follow it literately *cough*india*cough*

Always read the fine print, if someone tells you not to read it, smack em and go somewhere else. So many people get burned because they don't know what they are doing.

Case point:
a) You are legally bound to any contract, wether you clicked "I agree" or said "Ok" on the phone, even if you don't read it
b) In the USA you can agree to a 1year contract without signing one.
c) Anything that involves financial transations, it is of most importance that you read the fine print, otherwise you may fined.
d) In rental/lease agreements, evil landlords can add clauses to standard forms without your approval, but you have to agree to the clauses by signing/initialing the changes. Such is the case of damage deposits where they will try to not give it back to you if there is anything interpretated as damage, ie damages to walls, pet damage, fire damage, smoking, unauthorized alterations, etc.
e)In copyright/trademark/patent/royalty agreements you can literately sign away all your rights and whoever you signed it over to can do anything they damn well please. (See Rowlings Harry Potter stuff, she is only allowed to write the books, she signed away all the rights otherwise.)
f)People think that click-through/click-wrap agreements don't hold water because you have no dispute mechanism in which to fight it. However the reason there is so much BS language in TOS is to prevent the end user/customer from making claim to any rights.

So, summary: If you click/say OK/I AGREE/YES you agree to sign away any rights you may have with use to the product/service/etc

Very few agreements are in the end users favor. Hell Mcdonalds would probably want you to sign "I will not sue you" documents for stepping on their property because of friviolous lawsuits.

But anyways, I digress. I am not a lawyer, and the TOS are really meant for an excuse to get rid of undesirables. End of story.

Jops · Post by **Jops** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:27 pm

A-10 Thunderbolt 2: the Quack Killer

ManyWorlds · Post by **ManyWorlds** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:31 pm

Awesome, Jops.

Leko · Post by **Leko** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:37 pm

Cookie, I think that shot of Duffies looking back at the pantie-flag was really quite touching and deep.

*makes quick change to her comic*

Black Kitty · Post by **Black Kitty** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:42 pm

STrRedWolf wrote: This is why I'd like to make sure DD users can have the images hosted on their servers, like CG'ers who can do so here (and I want to allow them to post them on DD too).

They actually can. If any DD users are reading this, SpANG! had opened up a DD account earlier that any user participating in this war can use. All you have to do is private message either me or SpANG! and we will tell you how to access it.

And I didn't know I can access the CGWiki with my forum account.

Might edit in a sec...

[Edit: Although I'm not quite sure how I'm suppose to edit a bias Wiki entry. ^^;;; So I'll do my best.]