Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Is it just me?
- 2: How is the effective temperature going to be even LOWER at noon than it is now!?
- 3: Watched A Man on the Inside with Jenn
- 4: PSA: Tiktok's new TOS is untenable
- 5: So, if you're even tangentially interested in blogs or people who spend a lot of time
- 6: It is amazing how angry people get
- 7: Both the news and the weather continue awful
- 8: I feel bad about the three sentence prompts that are as yet unfilled
- 9: Moonpie is not a fan of CUNY/SUNY having started up again
Style Credit
- Style: Dawn Flush for Compartmentalize by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
it's true!
Date: 2007-11-17 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-17 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 05:56 am (UTC)I recently posted five separate batches of children's-book illustration icons in
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FIRST POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO SECOND POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO THIRD POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FOURTH POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FIFTH POST
Orrrrr on second thought, how is five teasers? Like this:
1st Teaser
LINK TO FIRST POST
2nd Teaser
LINK TO SECOND POST
3rd Teaser
LINK TO THIRD POST
4th Teaser
LINK TO FOURTH POST
5th Teaser
LINK TO FIFTH POST
(: What do you think? The only reason I'm even bothering to ask is because of the fact that there will be five different batches of icons. I'm not asking for an exception to be made for me; I just think it would be better than making five different posts, heh. But if you're really 100% against with it, I'll go with what I said originally about posting three teasers and then a link to the tag. :D
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:11 am (UTC)In reality, that rule is more of a guideline - if people only post 5 teasers instead of the "allowed" 3, I'm far too lazy to care! Though 15 is a bit much, yes - so many people do have slow connections or computers, and if they're blinky icons it can additionally be very distracting to some of us.
So - yes to the five, no to the fifteen.
And you're right, it's easier (and more polite, I think) than posting five different times, and thank you again for asking :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:32 am (UTC)it's true!
Date: 2007-11-17 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-17 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 06:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-18 01:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 05:56 am (UTC)I recently posted five separate batches of children's-book illustration icons in
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FIRST POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO SECOND POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO THIRD POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FOURTH POST
1st Teaser 2nd Teaser 3rd Teaser
LINK TO FIFTH POST
Orrrrr on second thought, how is five teasers? Like this:
1st Teaser
LINK TO FIRST POST
2nd Teaser
LINK TO SECOND POST
3rd Teaser
LINK TO THIRD POST
4th Teaser
LINK TO FOURTH POST
5th Teaser
LINK TO FIFTH POST
(: What do you think? The only reason I'm even bothering to ask is because of the fact that there will be five different batches of icons. I'm not asking for an exception to be made for me; I just think it would be better than making five different posts, heh. But if you're really 100% against with it, I'll go with what I said originally about posting three teasers and then a link to the tag. :D
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:11 am (UTC)In reality, that rule is more of a guideline - if people only post 5 teasers instead of the "allowed" 3, I'm far too lazy to care! Though 15 is a bit much, yes - so many people do have slow connections or computers, and if they're blinky icons it can additionally be very distracting to some of us.
So - yes to the five, no to the fifteen.
And you're right, it's easier (and more polite, I think) than posting five different times, and thank you again for asking :)
no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-19 06:32 am (UTC)