How about NO PICTURES?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

you can always post a link if you really want people to see something...

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:48 (twenty-one years ago)

this pains me to suggest, as I love a lot of the photo threads - and d bitch just posted some great stuff of iceland - but c'mon

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:50 (twenty-one years ago)

i think perhaps there should be a size limit on embedded pictures. small pictures can be embedded but for large ones, a link would be provided. perhaps too the link could be such that it would open in a new window? this would keep the original thread intact.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

of course no pics would mean no this: (d Bitch photos) REYKJAVIK : GRAFFITI: JUNE 21st to JUNE 24th

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Or you could just TURN OFF YOUR PICTURES.

― St. Nicholas (Nick A.), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

or people could just NOT POST USELESS PICS

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Fritz hates fun.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I love fun! it's a well-known fact.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

one of those two options is a lot easier to implement than the other

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 20:59 (twenty-one years ago)

this is a fantastic idea, esp. if we tweaked the code so as allow mods to flag certain threads as pic-friendly, thereby not losing the potential to do things like cover connections, what do you look like, etc.

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i actually love picture threads, just kind of playing devil's advocate

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I went to that thread that is meant to have pictures of Kate St. Claire and that other guy masturbating over each other. The pictures took so long to load that that I lost interest and went away. This shows the limitation of pictures.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:06 (twenty-one years ago)

(Where are you Jon? I got money riding on how long it takes you to post at least one fuck-all big picture to this thread.)

― martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:08 (twenty-one years ago)

thus sticking it to the man in the process or something

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:09 (twenty-one years ago)

get a faster connection, 98 lbs.

― superpower, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Better than pix: vague suggestive words, like "scarlet" or "dollar bill" or "buzzworthy"... like a Rod McKuen album.

― andy, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't see why anyone would want to limit everyone's ability to enjoy ILX just because they personally are inconvenienced, especially if a solution that would only affect their own browsing (turning off pictures) is so easily implemented.

― Dan I., Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:14 (twenty-one years ago)

It might be because people are lazy.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:17 (twenty-one years ago)

It's gotten to the point where I'm too lazy to even type out the inanities I mean to post. Dan, can you get someone over to help me do the physical part of posting?

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:20 (twenty-one years ago)

woah i just went to that board and i am amazed how successful it is. to the point where i think mad conspiracies be gwan and i am out of the loop to be sure :(

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:21 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.greyline.net/themetro/website%20photos/san%20francisco/P5170010.gif

― Neb Reyob (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a slow connection at home and a fast one at work. Don't change a thang.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

NO PICTURES! pictures ALWAYS uglify lovely text. NO PICTURES! Can you not SEE the desecration these meaningless colours and random blobs of pigment spew across the already difficult and confused barely readable page? I don't understand the blindness that lets people post pictures. It's aesthetic -- molestation. If you were to post a picture, how long would you have to take to find one that would legitimately fit into the page? That's not even to begin to talk about the demands stupid pictures make on older computers. And do you know why they make these demands? Because they're so stupid. Stupid things are never simple. All this is rubbish, obviously, but even if it is rubbish, it's still how I feel. I really strongly support the idea of no pictures.

― sol, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

you will have to start your own No Pictures board then. me i love pics tho i do have a bugbear about extreme attention-seeking (people should do it more stealthily, like me)

― stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:48 (twenty-one years ago)

IMAGE REQUEST!!!!111

― Picard Maneuver (Leee), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, I think I would really hate it if people took what I said seriously, anyway.

Just to answer in advance the 'turn off images in your browser' suggestion:
a - it looks horrible having that stupid cross on the page, and it's a constant reminder of the invidious image anyway
b - i just think it would be such a fine 'statement' for us not to have images.

Having said all that, I can totally imagine myself posting some stupid image and thinking it was hilarious, because it's always different when you do it yourself.

― sol, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Life would simply not be worth living if I couldn't post images llike this.....

http://www.wintergardens.plus.com/images/mckrustystickerbg.gif

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:52 (twenty-one years ago)

You know that saying 'a picture paints a thousand words'? I think a single letter aesthetically trounces a thousand pictures

― sol, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually that picture is really funny

― sol, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"or people could just NOT POST USELESS PICS
-- Fritz Wollner (fritzwollner5...), June 30th, 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fritz hates fun.
-- Alex in NYC (vassife...), June 30th, 2004.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love fun! it's a well-known fact.
-- Fritz Wollner (fritzwollner5...), June 30th, 2004."

I think this is the key

― sol, Wednesday, 30 June 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

http://erikagreen.com/travel/italy/paparazzi.jpg

PLEASE! NO PICTURES.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, anyone who has a problem with all the pictures being posted should see how it is with images turned off for one week. Before I tried it, I was in the "fuck that. i like photo threads. why should I let one person or group of persons change how I use ilx?". Now, I can't imagine NOT having images turned off.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you mean the ILX settings or IE settings?

― Picard Maneuver (Leee), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 23:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Err actually that's sort of a redundant query.

― Picard Maneuver (Leee), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a checkbox in the ILX settings with the following caption. By default it is unchecked.

Hide images
Images are replaced with a link. This may corrupt some messages.

― martin m. (mushrush), Wednesday, 30 June 2004 23:08 (twenty-one years ago)

http://neptune.spaceports.com/~queen/images/White%20on%20White%20Square.jpg

― captain gay, Thursday, 1 July 2004 00:08 (twenty-one years ago)

I've had the pictures turned off since the feature was implemented. I don't miss pictures at all.

― Melissa W (Melissa W), Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i have to apologize to everyone, because i keep forgetting about the turn-pictures-off option. oops.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

can we still use HTML?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

okay.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:54 (twenty-one years ago)

So why can't I use the img src tag?

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 1 July 2004 02:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i've had pictures turned off for about a year or so. it's nice. the biggest pain is that to see the ones you guys have to save as .txt requires creating a little html page to post them in. at least it seems that way - my browser won't find the .txt file as a url but will display it in an img tag.

also for some reason i think it's the photobucket links which drop the g from .jpg so i have to add it when i click on those.

― ron (ron), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:03 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.