Do Not Post Images From Rotten.com and Foo.ca

[bootless]

Well, I do appreciate this post because I am not an HTML/web wiz, and I never would have known that this happened. I also happen to have a bulletin board for a mind and do not care to remember pictures of decaying corpses and the like. It takes a long time to scrub my mind clean.

[FreedomCalls]

Keep in mind folks, we have a LOT of Liberal moles on FR that are here just to disrupt and cause problems. In other words, attempting to bring FR DOWN to the du level. Some have been here for years.

One of them even signed up as far back as 6-26-1998.

[sweetliberty]

Well, Glenn's whining notwothstanding, I find this useful information to have, although I have to admit that I am flattered that Glenn believes we're all so d**m smart that he assumes we would automatically know this.

[glock rocks]

To: Sabertooth

Thanks for sharing that handy tip with all of us!

139 posted on 01/03/2004 10:24:30 AM MST by Lead Moderator

Sabertooth? What tip did Sabertooth share? and how did you do that?

[Lead Moderator]

Thanks for sharing that handy tip with all of us!

[hellinahandcart]

You'd have had to be here when the thread first went up, it was a little different then.

To sum up, I Am Not A Mod, who is actually one of the Mods, posted the original article with the title "Do Not Post Images From Rotten.com".

G.Mason, in #8, immediately posted, from rotten.com, a picture of Michael Jackson, which was received with general merriment.

Lead Moderator then replied to G.Mason "Just wait and see what happens when we leave it up".

When Lead Moderator pinged me and others in #80, I thought it was to tell us that the switch had been made and some dreadful image was now on view at #8. In other words, to look quick before it had to be taken down. I still saw Michael Jackson. 8^P

But the ping was to notify us of modifications to the article body. The rotten.com image was posted there (now it's only a link to the picture) and the title had changed to something like "Do Not Post Images From Rotten.com (WARNING: Gross Picture on Thread)". I didn't notice that, or think to look at the article again, so that's how I got confused.

I'm still kind of waiting to see what Michael Jackson's picture changes into.

[sweetliberty]

"Too bad they don't think there is anything wrong with exposing Christians or young adults to this crap."

Quite the contrary, I'm sure. Leftists of any stripe, are by nature, anti-christian. Getting a shot at Christians is a bonus to them. They also support stealing the innocence of children at the earliest age possible, so I'm quite sure that concerns over protecting the youth never crosses their minds. I wouldn't even be surprised if some of them are kids themselves.

[sweetliberty]

LOL!

[Criminal Number 18F]

[auto-substitution of rotten.com links has] been requested to John months ago when it started happening. I think he is trying to avoid having a filter run on every reply.

Since there appears to be some latency in the rotten webmaster's substitution of his little message to us, why run it on every reply? Run it as a cron job on the threads. You can run it deep in the background (high NICE value) and let it automate its way through its task.

We don't need to see what a bunch of spotty juveniles thinks of us. We can infer that from their status as spotty juveniles.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[LowOiL]

I have great disdane for that site. It is fronted as a guise for horror but in reality is just another porn/shock site.

Sick people frequent it in my humble opinion.

[Lead Moderator]

See the main body of the thread now (at the bottom). There's the tip Sabes passed on.

[glock rocks]

Aha. Thank you!

[weegee]

OMG! I have a strong stomach, but that is just too much! Where WHY do these freaks find such awful pics?!

They are ammoral cretins who laugh and get jollies at other peoples' misery. Funny that they could look at carnage from 9.11.2001 and see FR as a bastion of "nazis". Once a dummycrat...

[weegee]

Q: "Are you a mod or a rocker?"

A: "Neither, I'm a mocker."

[antaresequity]

What if you use an IFrame ? and not an img tag?

[antaresequity]

Dont see a person when you look at a pic like that...think on a mollecular level...its just hunk of carbon based mollecules encapsulating a large amount of water and gas.

[weegee]

Reputedly, a lot of DirtyUnderwear members joined up in 1998 during impeachment. There was supposed to have been another wave of red diaper babies in 2000 during the Election 2000 recount.

There are also those who probably sign up a "new" account but leave it dormant anytime an account is banned.

Sign on date is no sign of a FReeper in good standing and the mods appear to be able to see just how long an account has been unused and what those last threads were.

I've seen at least one example of a profile too that had a false date (like 1776) as the signup date so it is possible that field could be hacked at one time.

[weegee]

The difference comes in posting a thread versus posting a reply.

If you post a thread, there is a comparison against a list of "Do not post" sources. It is even possible to get something removed from that (Aintitcoolnews was blocked for awhile even though some were attempting to cite it only in Chat/General Interest).

The Rotten.com images aren't being posted as their own thread, so no comparison is made. They are being posted as replies within a thread. Since it is very rare that someone would cite a full article (especially from LAtimes/WPost) in the body of a thread as a response, it is not a common problem.

The name rotten.com would appear to make it clear that there will be few "general audience" pictures to be found there anyway. The bigger problem comes when even a plausible image is replaced (manually by the operator of rotten) with something deliberately offensive.

It sounds like Rotten.com's administrator looks through the logs at times to see how his bandwidth is being used. I know that Jim Robinson told me not to use any more pictures from a site (which was itself illegally using copyrighted images of tv characters) because they told him to cease and desist. I did not argue (and it is a small enough site that it doesn't need to be mentioned now).

Another example (not even a "bandwidth" thing) was when an overseas administrator who had a dream fantasy about killing the president saw some hits coming from FR. It was brought up because it matched the death-threat t-shirt slogan being offered online by an American company. I think in the end, the whole thread was deleted so that angry young man would go away (he signed up at least 3 times to promote his site after he learned of FR).

So, moral of the story is that some webpage authors do look up details to see what traffic comes to their site and where it comes from/goes. And what's more, some of them rabidly hate conservatives, capitalists, Christians, and/or Americans.

[weegee]

Given the name of the URL, I am guessing it was the pic of the lady golfer kissing the trophy she won.

That old thing? The better version (created by a FReeper the day that picture came out) had the "Yatta" guys all gasping in the background:

[Nataku X]

But, there are plenty of filters being ran on each response already:

(1) Stripping out undesireable HTML tags (iframe doesn't work anymore), as well as CSS and Javascript stuff

(2) Spellcheck!!

(3) Auto-closing of HTML tags

(4) Insertation of paragraph tags between line breaks if there are none

[Lead Moderator]

Then I don't know the reason. But I do know it hasn't been done and I don't know when it will be done. Sorry!