What is this?

[HS30-H]

[Zed Head]

15 minutes ago, HS30-H said:

Three cheers for siteunseen, then. He's clearly our last best hope.

Next time I need an explanation for an image I've uploaded I'll cut out the middleman and go straight to him.

Begs the question - where did you get the image?  Is it from your camera?

[HS30-H]

2 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

Begs the question - where did you get the image?  Is it from your camera?

Look at the post above yours.

You are - of course - missing the whole point. It's the lifting of images LOSING ORIGINAL CONTEXT that's the problem. If they stay with their explanations, or at least a link to the source, then it's all fine and dandy.

[Zed Head]

You seem to be be blaming RHD for someone else's "lifting".  And the post above mine doesn't show or say anything about where you got it.  Are you saying that you lifted it from that magazine?  If you did, and didn't include an attribution in the post then you have broken the context chain.  

#6 here - 

 

[HS30-H]

7 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

You seem to be be blaming RHD for someone else's "lifting".  And the post above mine doesn't show or say anything about where you got it.  Are you saying that you lifted it from that magazine?  If you did, and didn't include an attribution in the post then you have broken the context chain. 

You really aren't getting it, are you? You're telling me I've broken the context chain but then link to a thread containing the image where I gave the context by explaining what was depicted in the photo I had posted...

If you don't see the difference between that and the first post in this thread then I don't know how to help you.    

 

[Zed Head]

You din't mention the magazine article at all.  And you seemed to have lifted words from it also.  

All you're really doing is claiming"first" to post the image on classiczcars.com.  And what you did is actually worse than what RHD did, in my opinion.  He posted the image to learn about it.  You posted it and used it, and maybe even used the author's own words, without attribution.

I'm not missing the point at all, but you're putting a lot of effort in to avoiding it.

[26th-Z]

Thanks for the voice of confidence Zed Head!  Of course, I don't know a damned thing and you should overlook whatever I post.  I gave you the source, publishing date and page number!  What more do you want?  Perhaps all you want to do is argue?

BTW, thank you again, Alan, for my copy of "Car Graphic".

 

[HS30-H]

2 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

You din't mention the magazine article at all.  And you seemed to have lifted words from it also.  

All you're really doing is claiming"first" to post the image on classiczcars.com.  And what you did is actually worse than what RHD did, in my opinion.  He posted the image to learn about it.  You posted it and used it, and maybe even used the author's own words, without attribution.

I'm not missing the point at all, but you're putting a lot of effort in to avoiding it.

You seem to be trying to do a switcheroo here. As was pointed out in post #4 of this thread, I first posted a scan of the same image on this forum back in 2003 but - as far as I am aware - I have not claimed that I was "first" to post it, even if I was. That's in your (Zed) head, I believe.

The image that's in the first post of this thread has my initials - ART - and a date code on it, and I believe I first posted it on the Japanese Nostalgic Cars forum thread that the 'Kyusha Kai' blog post (as linked by siteunseen in post #5 of this thread), and was part of a discussion which hopefully debunked a silly theory - as alluded to in the Kyusha Kai blog post. The initialling and date coding is something that I do occasionally with the intention of giving some traceability for an image I have posted, as I am concerned that images get taken out of context by being right-clicked-and-saved and then posted elsewhere. The context in question being the reason that they were posted in the first place, and it's often to illustrate a point or detail that is relevant to the topic of discussion. We do it all the time on classiczcars.com. Lifting an image from one of those threads/discussions and pasting it elsewhere - and in the process dropping all the information that went with it - seems like a backward step to me. I don't know the solution, but a bit of common sense would not go amiss. This is the reason for my hackles being raised somewhat when member 'Blue' here on classiczcars started a process of "vacuuming" images from archived classiczcars threads and posting them elsewhere on classiczcars devoid of any link to their original context. I just don't get it.

Yes, the image came originally from the 70-2 issue of Car Graphic magazine (as 26th-Z pointed out in post #8 of this thread...) but it is actually a copyright-free Nissan Press Department photo, which is where Car Graphic magazine got it from. If you want an example of 'Fair Use' of such photos I invite you to take a peek at zhome.com, which uses many photos from the same Nissan Press Dept. sequence as used in that 70-2 Car Graphic article. We still have not been told where the original poster sourced the image he was asking about, but the fact that it carries my watermark narrows things down a little I think?

I don't think you're going to get very far with your finger-pointing regarding me "lifting words" from the Car Graphic article. The original is - of course - in Japanese.           

[HS30-H]

43 minutes ago, 26th-Z said:

BTW, thank you again, Alan, for my copy of "Car Graphic".

Tip o' the hat to you, too.

[Zed Head]

It just offends me to see someone accuse someone else, in a derogatory tone, of an act that it turns out they committed themselves.  26th, you can't come in late as a "proxy" for HS30 to defend his honor, by saying that you gave the reference that HS30 left out.  It's not abut the information, it's about the original accusation.  Actually, I'm surprised that you chose a side, considering all.

HS30 accused RHD of being a "lifter" when he was the original lifter.  Kettle calling the pot black.  Then he dissembled and obfuscated at great length.  I didn't read his  last post and won't because all of the relevant information is already exposed, in this thread especially but in many past ones.  It's all clear.

 

[siteunseen]

2 hours ago, HS30-H said:

Three cheers for siteunseen, then. He's clearly our last best hope.

How sweet of you. 

[HS30-H]

43 minutes ago, Zed Head said:

I didn't read his  last post and won't because all of the relevant information is already exposed, in this thread especially but in many past ones.

I think this might say as much about you as it does about me.