EnviroLink Forum

Hi Josh,

Is posting this YouTube video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8i78A1yTKM ) with the WARNING of animal cruelty right bellow it a violation of forum rules. Hunter claims that it is. I have replaced the video for the time being but I would like to know what your take on this is. I do not find the captured still for the video a problem because it's very blurry and it's hard to see what's going on there.

I would like to know on this too. Watching the video you can clearly see dead animals. I don't know how Ante can claim they are blurry and hard to see.

I was told at one time it was against the forum rules to post pictures of dead animals. If it is not and Ante's video is acceptable that is fine, just as long as this means the hunters here can start posting their pictures too.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Hunter, I'm really sorry to see you so confused. Are you OK? Read the rules.

No photos/pictures of dead animals or people are allowed. If you want to post photos of your hunting trophies or graphic photos of dead and abused animals, please do it elsewhere. Links to sites that contain such photos are allowed.

I have posted a warning for animal cruelty for the video. Video is is not different than a link. Anyone who does not want to see cruelty does not have to click PLAY. The video does not play automatically. The only visible image is a grabbed still frame which is not clear at all.

Now, why are you harassing me about this? You did a very similar thing to Roger Yates yesterday for quoting his own writing.

Anyway let's see what Josh has to say about all of this...

I can see your point, Ante (about having to click PLAY for it to start), but I think the line should be drawn on embedding images or videos. You were right to check in here about this, I appreciate your effort in doing so.

-josh

Are you saying that embedding a video which contains any images of cruelty (dead animals) is violation even though the image of the screen is not? If this is the case, I find this odd. This will just about rule out posting most of animal rights videos.

Thank you for clearing that up Josh. I really didn't see a need to post pictures of dead animals, but if Ante was going to do it then it seemed only fair we all could. I'd much rather see it this way with the pictures and videos left out.

I think we all know what we're talking about here be it hunting or animal rights or animal welfare. So this constant barrage of pictures and videos is a little over the top and really adds nothing to the discussion. Expecially when it is nothing more then pictures or videos of dead animals. After all there are children that visit here, and I see no reason for them to have to go through all of that just because Ante is trying to make a point he can't make with words.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

I think the methods of creating the image of the unplayed video in embedded videos can change at the control of the video hosting company and are created by the images in the video so it is entirely possible for an acceptable image be seen by the person embedding the video but a different and potentially rule-violating image may be seen later by those reading the thread. Simple links to the video eliminate that possibility.

I don't exactly understand what you are saying. But, if you are saying that someone from outside can change the play mode of the YouTube videos embedded on this forum then you're wrong. Actually, you tube videos when watched on You-Tube site are all set for AUTO-PLAY but when the links from these videos are embedded on this forum they do NOT play automatically. You have to click to get them started. This can not be changed unless it's done on this end.

In this respect, posting a link to a YouTube video or any picture for that matter is worse than embedding a video. Usually with the links, you have no idea what you're clicking on. A single click on a URL can take you to a most horrific and pornographic picture you can imagine. I am sure most of children are capable of a single click on a mouse. So, I cannot see any logical justification for allowing the links to "offensive" image and videos but not allowing the videos to be embedded as long as these videos do not display an offensive still image. Embedding a photograph is different. When you display a photo, anyone who can see the full content of the image with a single glance. I think what is important is that there is a clear warning to anything which my lead one to something that may offend them.

I don't think it's difficult to see the motivation behind this scrutiny. As a matter of fact, many videos I had embedded on the Sea Shepherd's operation against the criminal whale murder had footage of whales being killed in them. Why didn't anyone object to these videos?

Moreover, I am not going to respond to some more of Hunter's deceptive provocations above. I think it's obvious why Hunter is here. Some of us even find his user name offensive and instigating. I don't see much difference in posting here with name "Hunter" than someone going to a forum set up for discussion of women rights, feminism and women abuse and registering there using the name "Rapist." Perhaps, I should have my name changed to "Kill Hunters?"

I guess I am just going to have to embed the videos and images somewhere else.

What makes you think Hunter is about hunting and not the name my parents gave me. There are people named Hunter. So now without knowing what you're talking about, you throw insults around without validation, and compare me to a rapist.

I'll ask you one time to take that one back Ante. If not I will file an offical complaint with Josh. There is no need to attempt to associate certain forum members to rapists. You've gone about as low as you can go haven't you Ante.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

No, your real name is not Hunter. I remember you stating yourself that your user name is fictitious. Can you show us that it is not?

I have made an analogy which is valid, nothing more. You can try to twist the meaning of what I said, but there are people who can think and understand couple of simple sentences.

Recently, on number of occasions, you have falsely and directly accused me here publicly of committing a crime, stealing etc. and called me a thief. This is libel. My attorney is working on this. You live in USA. Hiding your real identity on the Internet while harassing someone is going to work against you, so I hear.

I am not a malicious person and have better things to do but it is you who have gone way to far.

Moved to the open forum so we will not break any rules.

_________________
I don't know what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce.

Thank you, I was going to tell you both to button it.