I'm not seriously upset. It was the dogfight (cut because, well, it's two dogs fighting, and one of them is bleeding all over the place) and the Giant Hasselhoff, which appears to sear the eyes of the unbeliever.
My general position on it is that you should look at the person's LJ if you're worried about cutting. If people post large images/amounts of text frequently and never cut it, then that's fine cause you can choose to have them on your friends list or not, or indeed filter them for when you've got the bandwidth to view them.
It's mostly only annoying when someone who generally does small posts and few images suddenly posts a dozen huge pictures.
Nobody was complaining about the bandwidth, or the nature pics.
The ones people complained about, somewhat justifiably, where the work-safe but somewhat graphic dogfight and the work-safe but somewhat creepy 13-foot Hasselhoff.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 09:54 pm (UTC)(Vermont, yes?)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 09:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 09:58 pm (UTC)And if this is not work-safe, then I hate your job and think you should get fired.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 10:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 10:49 pm (UTC)So, you may not have *cut* it, but you *did* cute it.
GD&R
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-12 11:04 pm (UTC)So there.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 12:28 am (UTC)Not that I actually care, I've set LJ to not display above 640*something unless I read the post itself, it saves the dial up death o doom.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 12:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 12:38 am (UTC)But nature pics? If I had broadband I wouldn't have a problem at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 01:40 pm (UTC)It's mostly only annoying when someone who generally does small posts and few images suddenly posts a dozen huge pictures.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-13 01:42 pm (UTC)The ones people complained about, somewhat justifiably, where the work-safe but somewhat graphic dogfight and the work-safe but somewhat creepy 13-foot Hasselhoff.