Detriment wrote:

I don't see what was offtopic unless the posts were removed?

cheeseeater wrote:

Detriment wrote:

I don't see what was offtopic unless the posts were removed?

They were removed. Lets just forget it.

Paddle2See wrote:

1. Why aren't you using Adblock?

stickfiregames wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

1. Why aren't you using Adblock?

I don't think Scratch should expect everyone to use a specific extension, since (1) their browser might not be supported and (2) some people are opposed to it because it deprives legitimate sites of ad revenue.

stickfiregames wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

1. Why aren't you using Adblock?

I don't think Scratch should expect everyone to use a specific extension, since (1) their browser might not be supported and (2) some people are opposed to it because it deprives legitimate sites of ad revenue.

OmnipotentPotato wrote:

stickfiregames wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

1. Why aren't you using Adblock?

I don't think Scratch should expect everyone to use a specific extension, since (1) their browser might not be supported and (2) some people are opposed to it because it deprives legitimate sites of ad revenue.

There's a whitelist you know…. But I agree it is ridiculous to say it is okay because everyone should have adblock. I doubt that is what he was saying anyways though.

speakvisually wrote:

I am not sure about creating a news item. A lot of Scratcher aren't aware we have discussion forums, so I don't think that information would be relevant. Perhaps updating or creating a stickied topic about image hosting on the forums would make more sense.

djdolphin wrote:

speakvisually wrote:

I am not sure about creating a news item. A lot of Scratcher aren't aware we have discussion forums, so I don't think that information would be relevant. Perhaps updating or creating a stickied topic about image hosting on the forums would make more sense.

I agree.

Superdoggy wrote:

Despite the off-topic-ness of my posts they were still valid…

But seriously, anti-tinypic propaganda isn't going to get you anywhere. If anything, it'll cause paranoia between those who have used tinypic to host their images. Also if people are willing to risk it, they should still be able to use it as a host. While you (possibly) can get viruses from the site, at least you know that the images themselves are safe.

speakvisually wrote:

I am not sure about creating a news item. A lot of Scratcher aren't aware we have discussion forums, so I don't think that information would be relevant. Perhaps updating or creating a stickied topic about image hosting on the forums would make more sense.

Firedrake969 wrote:

You CANNOT - I REPEAT: CANNOT - get a virus FROM AN EMBEDDED HTML IMAGE.

Tell me how an html image tag can possibly give you a virus?

TheHockeyist wrote:

Superdoggy wrote:

Despite the off-topic-ness of my posts they were still valid…

But seriously, anti-tinypic propaganda isn't going to get you anywhere. If anything, it'll cause paranoia between those who have used tinypic to host their images. Also if people are willing to risk it, they should still be able to use it as a host. While you (possibly) can get viruses from the site, at least you know that the images themselves are safe.

(I keep getting ninjaed today…)
I would rather play it on the safe site. Someone might be willing to risk it - and not be careful and infect themselves. The images are safe, but. Tinypic is not. Who knows? Tinypic could infect the images! Then we'd be in trouble.

TheHockeyist wrote:

djdolphin wrote:

speakvisually wrote:

I am not sure about creating a news item. A lot of Scratcher aren't aware we have discussion forums, so I don't think that information would be relevant. Perhaps updating or creating a stickied topic about image hosting on the forums would make more sense.

I agree.

Support this.

Firedrake969 wrote:

You CANNOT - I REPEAT: CANNOT - get a virus FROM AN EMBEDDED HTML IMAGE.

Tell me how an html image tag can possibly give you a virus?