IN ends HTML question
Marc Fannin
new Indiana Ends/Multiplex pages ( http://www.roadfan.com/inends.html
, http://www.roadfan.com/inmplex.html ). With a majority of photos
already existing on other websites, my question is how to code it -
locally or remotely?
<img src="filename.jpg">
vs
<img src="http://www.other's site.com/folder/filename.jpg">
The latter is what I'm planning, because it would make less work for
me (no saving and storing lots of images), but there are concerns:
1. Bandwith - I would be eating into the bandwith on their site, not
mine
2. Removal of images - if one of them decides to remove photos from
the site, it will leave broken images on my page
3. A minor thing: It would make my pages larger with the extra code,
but that's negligible as the actual code will take up a relatively
very small space either way.
What's best for all?
________________________________________________________________________
Marc Fannin|musx...@kent.edu or @hotmail.com| http://www.roadfan.com/
SPUI
> I have received permission from many people to use their images on the
> new Indiana Ends/Multiplex pages ( http://www.roadfan.com/inends.html
> , http://www.roadfan.com/inmplex.html ). With a majority of photos
> already existing on other websites, my question is how to code it -
> locally or remotely?
>
> <img src="filename.jpg">
>
> vs
>
> <img src="http://www.other's site.com/folder/filename.jpg">
>
> The latter is what I'm planning, because it would make less work for
> me (no saving and storing lots of images), but there are concerns:
>
> 1. Bandwith - I would be eating into the bandwith on their site, not
> mine
Definitely get permission to link into their sites. Bandwidth and associated
costs can be a big issue.
>
> 2. Removal of images - if one of them decides to remove photos from
> the site, it will leave broken images on my page
If you do any direct linking, save a copy of the image on your computer in
case the original goes down.
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
Adam Prince
"Marc Fannin" <musx...@kent.edu> wrote in message
news:cc3aa42a.03021...@posting.google.com...
Adam Prince
If you do a direct link...you are only hurting your site in the long run.
Site goes offline they pull that photo down. Searching for photos that are
missing (you can't rely on the internet archive to find the loss image) will
become frustrating and will make many holes in your site.
And if you are going to do as planned 5-10 routes on one page, a few broken
images will really hamper the appeal. Plus bandwidth issues to the other
site...you are doubledipping... first your own bandwidth (that will occur
naturally), plus theirs. And if they are on a slower server, (dialup) or
that site is temporarily down, that really slows down loading time, and the
overall effect of the page
Good webpages are much more complex than just typing in links to an offsite
image so you can put up the photos since they aren't around elsewhere.
No offense, but opting to type in the outside url of the image instead of
taking the extra time, which really isn't much, to have it secure on your
site, is very lazy and poor webpage management.
"Marc Fannin" <musx...@kent.edu> wrote in message
news:cc3aa42a.03021...@posting.google.com...
Douglas Kerr
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:3e4d4d6c$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> Marc Fannin wrote:
> > I have received permission from many people to use their images on the
> > new Indiana Ends/Multiplex pages ( http://www.roadfan.com/inends.html
> > , http://www.roadfan.com/inmplex.html ). With a majority of photos
> > already existing on other websites, my question is how to code it -
> > locally or remotely?
> >
> > <img src="filename.jpg">
> >
> > vs
> >
> > <img src="http://www.other's site.com/folder/filename.jpg">
> >
> > The latter is what I'm planning, because it would make less work for
> > me (no saving and storing lots of images), but there are concerns:
> >
> > 1. Bandwith - I would be eating into the bandwith on their site, not
> > mine
>
> Definitely get permission to link into their sites. Bandwidth and
associated
> costs can be a big issue.
Ahem. Does this mean you learned your lesson after using Chris Jordan's end
photos at Massachusetts state lines with New York and Vermont without his
permission? By the way, you still have MA 112 ends photos online used
without his permission.
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> news:3e4d4d6c$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>> Marc Fannin wrote:
>>> 1. Bandwith - I would be eating into the bandwith on their site, not
>>> mine
>>
>> Definitely get permission to link into their sites. Bandwidth and
associated
>> costs can be a big issue.
>
> Ahem. Does this mean you learned your lesson after using Chris Jordan's
end
> photos at Massachusetts state lines with New York and Vermont without his
> permission?
I never linked to the server; I have always used locally stored copies. That
is a completely different issue than using photos without permission.
Sherman Cahal
> Douglas Kerr wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3e4d4d6c$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >> Marc Fannin wrote:
> >>> 1. Bandwith - I would be eating into the bandwith on their site, not
> >>> mine
> >>
> >> Definitely get permission to link into their sites. Bandwidth and
> associated
> >> costs can be a big issue.
> >
> > Ahem. Does this mean you learned your lesson after using Chris Jordan's
> end
> > photos at Massachusetts state lines with New York and Vermont without
his
> > permission?
>
> I never linked to the server; I have always used locally stored copies.
That
> is a completely different issue than using photos without permission.
No its not. Whether you link to the photos without their permission or
downloaded the photos and THEN used them without their permission is the
same thing. It is acceptable to download photos and view them on your
computer, but to place those downloaded photos on your site without the
author's permission is wrong.
--
Sherman Cahal
Author of Ohio River Valley Roads,
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
>>
>> I never linked to the server; I have always used locally stored copies.
That
>> is a completely different issue than using photos without permission.
>
> No its not. Whether you link to the photos without their permission or
> downloaded the photos and THEN used them without their permission is the
> same thing.
One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I think
not.
> It is acceptable to download photos and view them on your
> computer, but to place those downloaded photos on your site without the
> author's permission is wrong.
Saying that it is wrong is one thing. Actually believing it is another. Did
you get permission for the historic photos and maps you scanned and put on
your website?
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3e4d79a7$0$3925$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >>
> >> I never linked to the server; I have always used locally stored copies.
> That
> >> is a completely different issue than using photos without permission.
> >
> > No its not. Whether you link to the photos without their permission or
> > downloaded the photos and THEN used them without their permission is the
> > same thing.
>
> One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I
think
> not.
>
> > It is acceptable to download photos and view them on your
> > computer, but to place those downloaded photos on your site without the
> > author's permission is wrong.
>
> Saying that it is wrong is one thing. Actually believing it is another.
Did
> you get permission for the historic photos and maps you scanned and put on
> your website?
The copyright expired in early 2003. I posted the photos in late 2002, but
since the copyright has since expired (and not renewed), it is public
domain. I personally tried contacting John Robinson but could not find the
author. The photos from various DOT's were also taken but the copyright on
those photos do not extend to the author since they were retrieved from
outside sources.
copyright.gov:
"Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the
date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of
registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case,
the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was
secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was
eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term
from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978,
or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75
years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the
renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20
years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of
protection of 95 years."
It was not renewed.
Sherman Cahal
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3e4d79a7$0$3925$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >>
> >> I never linked to the server; I have always used locally stored copies.
> That
> >> is a completely different issue than using photos without permission.
> >
> > No its not. Whether you link to the photos without their permission or
> > downloaded the photos and THEN used them without their permission is the
> > same thing.
>
> One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I
think
> not.
BUT you are still USING their photographs WITHOUT their permission. You
cannot justify that.
Chris J.
If you're just going to remote link the pics,
why bother doing the page in the first place?
That's just utter laziness.
No offense Marc, but Roadfan is a joke.
You've said yourself that making web pages is too much of a chore,
so why bother making more pages in the first place?
In any event Marc,
someone else has already taken the time to make a decent Indiana Termini
Site.
Why not leave it to someone else who will actually put the effort in their
work and make a decent site and not resort to remote linking pictures from
someone else's site.
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
>> Saying that it is wrong is one thing. Actually believing it is another.
Did
>> you get permission for the historic photos and maps you scanned and put
on
>> your website?
>
> The copyright expired in early 2003. I posted the photos in late 2002, but
> since the copyright has since expired (and not renewed), it is public
> domain. I personally tried contacting John Robinson but could not find the
> author. The photos from various DOT's were also taken but the copyright on
> those photos do not extend to the author since they were retrieved from
> outside sources.
>
the law, that is in no way the only possible morality.
SPUI
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
>> One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I
think
>> not.
>
> BUT you are still USING their photographs WITHOUT their permission. You
> cannot justify that.
>
use photos with credit for non-profit purposes, even without permission.
Steve
The general set of morality is that you don't use things without
asking. This is what parents tell children when they're three. To do
so is rude, and can invite repremanding or worse. In issues of
legality, it can result in lawsuits. What if I put up a giant McDonalds
M across from Burger King, just for the heck of it. Non-profit,
naturally. How long do you think I'd last? In some people's moral
systems, killing people of different religions is allowable. In some
moral systems, having sexual relations with relatives is allowable.
Imagine if the Constitution allowed anything permissible by anyone's
moral system. It's called anarchy.
David Jensen
<3e4dd065$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>:
>Sherman Cahal wrote:
>> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
>> news:3e4d8b89$0$3936$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
>>> One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I
>think
>>> not.
>>
>> BUT you are still USING their photographs WITHOUT their permission. You
>> cannot justify that.
>>
>Maybe it cannot be justified in your moral system. But I believe it is OK to
>use photos with credit for non-profit purposes, even without permission.
That is not the law, however. The law requires you to get permission
from the copyright holder before using it.
SPUI
> SPUI wrote:
>>
>> Sherman Cahal wrote:
>>>
>>> BUT you are still USING their photographs WITHOUT their permission. You
>>> cannot justify that.
>>>
>> Maybe it cannot be justified in your moral system. But I believe it is OK
to
>> use photos with credit for non-profit purposes, even without permission.
>>
> asking.
You don't _use_ things without asking. Copying and displaying is not using,
just as mp3 downloading is not stealing. In fact fair use allows limited
copying and displaying. IMO it should allow more than it currently does.
> This is what parents tell children when they're three. To do
> so is rude, and can invite repremanding or worse. In issues of
> legality, it can result in lawsuits. What if I put up a giant McDonalds
> M across from Burger King, just for the heck of it. Non-profit,
> naturally. How long do you think I'd last?
I fail to see what you are talking about; if you own the property across
from Burger King there is nothing to stop you from putting up a giant M as a
parody (fair use).
> In some people's moral
> systems, killing people of different religions is allowable. In some
> moral systems, having sexual relations with relatives is allowable.
> Imagine if the Constitution allowed anything permissible by anyone's
> moral system. It's called anarchy.
Main Entry: straw man
Function: noun
Date: 1896
1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only
to be easily confuted
[Merriam-Webster]
And I have no problem with people having consentual sex with immediate
relatives, as long as no child is produced.
Sherman Cahal
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> > "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
> > news:3e4d8b89$0$3936$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >> One uses the other site's bandwidth. The other doesn't. Same thing? I
> think
> >> not.
> >
> > BUT you are still USING their photographs WITHOUT their permission. You
> > cannot justify that.
> >
> Maybe it cannot be justified in your moral system. But I believe it is OK
to
> use photos with credit for non-profit purposes, even without permission.
Let me cite from Section 107 from the copyright laws:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple
copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright.
Road pictures hardly quality as teaching or research. This also falls under
the Fair Use Act:
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright
owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give
this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of
copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use"
would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither
determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible
copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an
attorney.
And to cite from Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the
public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,
pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the
individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display
the copyrighted work publicly; and
Point 5 makes the point clear, that the owner of the copyright has the
authority to say whether or not you have that image on your site. He/she is
protected by Section 106, the Fair Use Act, and Section 107.
Chris Aseltine
R. Droz
> my question is how to code it - locally or remotely?
>
> <img src="filename.jpg"
> vs
> <img src="http://www.other's site.com/folder/filename.jpg">
I'd stick with locally hosted material, using
<img src="bigsign.jpg" alt="Big Sign" height="100" width="100">
It makes for faster loading times.
I had to change servers once due to someone linking directly to pictures
as opposed to copying them and posting them themselves.
--
_____________________________________________________________
Happy Motoring! _._._._.____~__
Robert V. Droz ( us...@earthlink.net ) [____________][_\__
U.S. Highways : From US 1 to (US 830) [________/____[_|__\
http://www.us-highways.com/ ()() ()() ()
Steve
Funny, I have no problem with people having consensual sex with
immediate relatives, either. Immediate relatives of non-related people,
that is...
SPUI, remind me not to visit your home. :P
Adam Prince
(see below)
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:3e4dd465$0$3926$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
Sherman Cahal
> Steve wrote:
> You don't _use_ things without asking. Copying and displaying is not
using,
> just as mp3 downloading is not stealing. In fact fair use allows limited
> copying and displaying. IMO it should allow more than it currently does.
Copying and displaying on YOUR web-site as if you gathered and asked
permission for all those photos. The Fair Use Act needs to be seriously
revised.
> > This is what parents tell children when they're three. To do
> > so is rude, and can invite repremanding or worse. In issues of
> > legality, it can result in lawsuits. What if I put up a giant McDonalds
> > M across from Burger King, just for the heck of it. Non-profit,
> > naturally. How long do you think I'd last?
>
> I fail to see what you are talking about; if you own the property across
> from Burger King there is nothing to stop you from putting up a giant M as
a
> parody (fair use).
False. Trademark of McDonald's. McDonald's could file suit unless you
gathered permission from them to utilize the trademark "M".
> > In some people's moral
> > systems, killing people of different religions is allowable. In some
> > moral systems, having sexual relations with relatives is allowable.
> > Imagine if the Constitution allowed anything permissible by anyone's
> > moral system. It's called anarchy.
>
> Main Entry: straw man
> Function: noun
> Date: 1896
> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up
only
> to be easily confuted
> [Merriam-Webster]
>
> And I have no problem with people having consentual sex with immediate
> relatives, as long as no child is produced.
I don't want to know...
SPUI
> Steve wrote:
>> In some people's moral
>> systems, killing people of different religions is allowable. In some
>> moral systems, having sexual relations with relatives is allowable.
>> Imagine if the Constitution allowed anything permissible by anyone's
>> moral system. It's called anarchy.
>
> Main Entry: straw man
> Function: noun
> Date: 1896
> 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up
only
> to be easily confuted
> [Merriam-Webster]
>
SPUI
Tell me when you actually have an argument to contribute.
SPUI
> Marc Fannin wrote:
>> my question is how to code it - locally or remotely?
>>
>> <img src="filename.jpg"
>> vs
>> <img src="http://www.other's site.com/folder/filename.jpg">
>
> I'd stick with locally hosted material, using
> <img src="bigsign.jpg" alt="Big Sign" height="100" width="100">
> It makes for faster loading times.
Changing the height and width tags does nothing for loading times if the
image size is not changed. The whole image is still loaded and then shrunk
in the browser.
Barry L. Camp
photos and/or other content:
Linking to photo (not stored locally).
Pros:
Lesser bandwidth required.
Lesser storage required.
Cons:
Most ISPs don't like "cross-linked content".
Greater bandwidth used on other's servers; may trigger request to
cease
activity.
If other server goes down, you get incomplete content.
If source pictures move, you get incomplete content.
Locally stored photos:
Pros:
No "cross-linked content".
No dependency on other servers to be up.
Content is always complete and under your control.
Flexibility to reformat, move around as needed.
Cons:
Greater bandwidth required.
Greater storage required.
So as you can see, there are pros and cons to doing it either way. But
were
I you, as long as you get permission to use the photos on your site
(and make the proper attribution), I would store them locally and make
sure the photo owner knows that this is what you will be doing. It
offers you the greatest flexibility in operating your page(s)/site.
I think it is best to run all of the content of *your* site... on
*your*
server. Good Luck.
Barry L. Camp
musx...@kent.edu (Marc Fannin) wrote in message news:<cc3aa42a.03021...@posting.google.com>...
Brandon Gorte
"Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8al3a.3852$Se4.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Could think of a few "other" things "SPUI" stands for... :-p
Thanks for the early morning thoughts, Dan. (NOT!)
Sean Lyons
attitude? Everyone, AFAIK, has some decent set of morals and values, so why
waste those on a picture?
You know what happens when you assume, don't you? You make an ASS out of U
and ME! You drag too many outside parties into something that could be
cleared up via a simple e-mail message apologizing for the use of a photo
without permission. You either take the picture down, or you get the
permission to keep it up. That seems simple enough.
Dude, you opened a major can of worms and they're escaping on you. Better
clean up the mess.
As for this quote: "And I have no problem with people having consentual sex
with immediate
relatives, as long as no child is produced", that's just plain sick, PERIOD.
Maybe you don't really have ANY morals after all. Sorry if I was mistaken.
--
Sean Lyons
http://www.angelfire.com/oh5/toluwohwys
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
news:3e4dd065$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
Douglas Kerr
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in message
Thanks for sharing. Really.
Froggie
> from the copyright holder before using it.
Dan (SPUI) has shown us in the past (particularily the "no photographs allowed"
sign thread) that what he thinks is proper and what the LAW says is proper are
not necessarily along the same line.
Now, granted, we all have quite likely "broken the law" at one point or another,
but Dan chooses to make a moral argument out of the issue. Fair enough, but he
should take a good hard look at himself before he proceeds to criticize others
OR (and especially) the law.
Froggie | Reporting from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
J.P. Kirby
news:3e4de587$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
> Chris Aseltine wrote:
>> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> writes:
>>
>>> And I have no problem with people having consentual sex with immediate
>>> relatives, as long as no child is produced.
>
> Tell me when you actually have an argument to contribute.
>
It's called "morals".
--
J.P. Kirby, Captain of all Obvious!
v5...@unb.ca jpk...@hotmail.com
The website's coming back. Trust me.
------------
"It's the only time of year where we actually get people calling to say I
WANT to see commercials!"
- Dave Hamilton, VP of promotions for Global TV, on Super Bowl
commercials being blacked out in Canada
Adam Prince
"J.P. Kirby" <jpk...@nbnet.nb.ac> wrote in message
news:Xns9323812B96C0A...@198.164.200.20...
> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> wrote in
> news:3e4de587$0$22541$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu:
>
> > Chris Aseltine wrote:
> >> "SPUI" <sp...@mit.BUTIDONTLIKESPeduAM> writes:
> >>
> >>> And I have no problem with people having consentual sex with immediate
> >>> relatives, as long as no child is produced.
> >
> > Tell me when you actually have an argument to contribute.
> >
>
> It's called "morals".
Which Dan has been showing his lack thereof...rather well...
Marc Fannin
> If you're just going to remote link the pics,
> why bother doing the page in the first place?
> That's just utter laziness.
No, it's time-saving.
> No offense Marc, but Roadfan is a joke.
I'm sure Sandor would be happy to hear that after spending hour after
hour appeasing critics (among doing it for himself) by revamping the
Ohio pages with graphics....
BTW, many people/organizations disagree with you, like some m.t.r
regulars, some non m.t.r site users, the U.S. State Department
( http://www.state.gov/m/dghr/flo/rsrcs/pubs/2036.htm ), Southbend.com
( http://www.southbend.com/Info.shtml ), the Columbus (OH) Dispatch
newspaper, and others....
And what does "no offense" actually mean these days?
> You've said yourself that making web pages is too much of a chore,
> so why bother making more pages in the first place?
I like to. Doing them CONSTANTLY is a chore. But who said there were
deadlines? My personal page has been up 7 years, yet there are still
undeveloped parts. For that matter, I have offline projects started
in the early 1980s which I never finished. It's a hobby, not a job.
> In any event Marc,
> someone else has already taken the time to make a decent Indiana Termini
> Site.
Mine is just as decent as the other (funny there was no interest in
this until I put my page up). A termini site shows the termini. The
rest is at the discretion of the creator.
> Why not leave it to someone else who will actually put the effort in their
> work and make a decent site and not resort to remote linking pictures from
> someone else's site.
I guess I have no choice, according to you and a few others....
Adam Prince
"Marc Fannin" <musx...@kent.edu> wrote in message
news:cc3aa42a.03021...@posting.google.com...
> "Chris J." <cj_j...@netzero.net> wrote...
<snip>
> > In any event Marc,
> > someone else has already taken the time to make a decent Indiana Termini
> > Site.
>
> Mine is just as decent as the other (funny there was no interest in
> this until I put my page up).
Don Hargraves expressed interest in IN Ends as early as November with
e-mails to our website.
Sherman Cahal
> Steve wrote:
[snip]
Okay, let's get off of this subject. The point has been made that anyone
that wishes to utilize pictures for their web-site should ask. The owner of
the pictures would more than likely agree to use of the picture. It's a good
way to create and keep friendships between web-sites.
--
Sherman Cahal
Author of Ohio River Valley Roads,
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads
Jeff Kitsko
>
> And I have no problem with people having consentual sex with immediate
> relatives, as long as no child is produced.
OK, well, that is...um...uh...hmmm...something.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/