Heartland

Tidal wrote:Most definitely not work-safe! Please don't EVER do that again, Tidal.

ETA: Sinnie to the rescue! Good thing I didn't scroll all the way down, or I could possibly have compromised my job. Please THINK about what you're posting, folks!

What the hell ARE you talking about? I aint got a job(im in highschool) so I have no idea what worksafe is! What's wrong with Bush eating a cat?

Tidal wrote:

Tidal wrote:Most definitely not work-safe! Please don't EVER do that again, Tidal.

ETA: Sinnie to the rescue! Good thing I didn't scroll all the way down, or I could possibly have compromised my job. Please THINK about what you're posting, folks!

What the hell ARE you talking about? I aint got a job(im in highschool) so I have no idea what worksafe is! What's wrong with Bush eating a cat?

I just explained "work-safe" in my previous post. If you've got a problem with Heartland's policies, feel free to PM either Quiffy or one of the mods (including me). Going forward, please don't post such material again, because it'll be deleted.

No idea what worksafe is? Anything that would get you potentially suspended at school could get you fired from work.

I didn't see it, but please, if you must post NSFW material, just provide a textual link to it, and make it clear that it's not worksafe.

The thing is, EB had *already* posted a URL to that photo, and had stated that it was unsafe for work. There was no need for the actual (p0rnographic) pic to be posted in this thread. End of.

I'm too late aren't I?

I think some editing has occured and I am left confused.

You ain't missin' much. It was, as the saying goes, "gob-smackingly vile."

Unless you're a vomit fetishist. Ugh.

Really...you're better off confused. Some things you can't un-see.

oh I saw the pic! Yes, well, there are more unpleasant things on the internet and it probably served him right anyway.

Seems to be some comments under tidals name that weren't made by him, else he's talking to himself...

Maisey wrote:oh I saw the pic! Yes, well, there are more unpleasant things on the internet and it probably served him right anyway.

Seems to be some comments under tidals name that weren't made by him, else he's talking to himself...

No, I had to do some lightning-quick editing, to ensure that no Heartlanders got fired from their jobs from inadvertently looking at that...

markfiend wrote:Oh. My. God.

Not necessarily safe? about several million per cent unsafe for work.

People, do not click that link.



It's worse than tubgirl, or the goatse man.

WOAH! What the FUDGE! That was NOT the image that I posted a link to! My image was fairly harmless, had a kitty in a car cursing out the driver in front - the reason it might not have been safe for work is because kitty was using some bad swears, but they were only in text.
I'm guessing that someone updated the site - that new pik is fcukin' GROSS!
Apologies if people clicked on it and were appalled - I'm pretty freakin' shocked myself!

edit: I have tracked down the original picture and put it in my photobucket so it can't be messed with. Here is the image that you SHOULD Have seen if you clicked the earlier link:

Click[

This may not be safe for work if people around you can read the writing on your screen, there are some rude words involved.

EvilBastard wrote:

markfiend wrote:Oh. My. God.

Not necessarily safe? about several million per cent unsafe for work.

People, do not click that link.



It's worse than tubgirl, or the goatse man.

WOAH! What the FUDGE! That was NOT the image that I posted a link to! My image was fairly harmless, had a kitty in a car cursing out the driver in front - the reason it might not have been safe for work is because kitty was using some bad swears, but they were only in text.
I'm guessing that someone updated the site - that new pik is fcukin' GROSS!
Apologies if people clicked on it and were appalled - I'm pretty freakin' shocked myself!

NOW I understand why Tidal's so confused - HIS link directed to the same filthy photo, when the original pic was (apparently) an inocuous one. I'm wondering if it's not a case of the site being updated, but rather, it's a deliberate trick in the destination site's programming that's redirecting those links to the pr0n photo..? Techies, any idea?

EvilBastard wrote: I'm guessing that someone updated the site - that new pik is fcukin' GROSS!

I guess few people like bandwidth thieves.

@Tidal - I'm sorry for yelling at you! I thought you'd posted that deliberately. Now I see how it wasn't your fault.

As a precaution, though, in future, everyone please double-check your posts before hitting "Submit," especially if they contain photos. Egads.

Fixed the pic. Hope it works now and hope you can enjoy the honour of my original remark

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6706 ... xeddd2.jpg

It's probably due to hotlinking.

Anyone who links remotely to certain websites' images, thus leeching their bandwidth, often find their images replaced with another image, or the word "Image" or a 1x1 white pixel. Right-clicking, selecting "View Image" and doing a Shift+Refresh will generally get the right image.
I guess that website's owner was so sick of hotlinkers he used the hai2u vomit-cock image to deter them. An amusing image, probably a mite NSFW.

Tidal wrote:Fixed the pic. Hope it works now and hope you can enjoy the honour of my original remark

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6706 ... xeddd2.jpg

Yeah, I wouldn't put such things past that man, really...

Thanks, Tidal!

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/6706 ... xeddd2.jpg[/quote]

oh bush killing people, now he's eating cat, this guy is sick
he might like chinese food then

I remember seeing someones eBay auction when they'd hotlinked someone elses pics to illustrate some piece of American Football memorabilia they were selling. The host of the pics found out and replaced the pictures with pictures of an extremely obese woman with the caption "Auction winner also gets a date with my sister."

At least it wasn't pain.jpg

Dark wrote:It's probably due to hotlinking.

That's the weird bit - because it was slightly unsafe for work I only pasted a link, not a hotlink - do people not like their sites being linked to?

sultan2075 wrote:At least it wasn't pain.jpg

Or puk-e-sian.mpg

EvilBastard wrote:I only pasted a link, not a hotlink

It doesn't make a difference. Some sites check the referrer (in this case the site you were on when you clicked the link), and if it's being linked off-site they either deliver an error page or something nasty.

EvilBastard wrote:do people not like their sites being linked to?

Generally we don't mind, provided you link to the actual page, not just straight the image, by doing that you're not displaying it as the webmaster intended and using his bandwidth too.

Personally I only allow certain sites to link to images on my site. Other sites that hot link get an error message. You can do this using a configuration file but not everyone knows about it/has access to it.

could anyone write what they say?
it's sometimes hard for me to hear properly

PS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk--BElGFp8
if someone haven't seen

ormfdmrush wrote:could anyone write what they say?
it's sometimes hard for me to hear properly

PS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk--BElGFp8
if someone haven't seen

Now that really isn't safe for anywhere on planet earth!