Posted by dorayme on 05/11/06 07:38

In article <Xns97BEBF4951B6Dhttpwwwneredbojiasco@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html>
wrote:

> I will concede that there could be scenarios (such as the one you
> illustrated) wherein calling the linker image a "thumbnail" might be a
> stretch, but other than that, shall we agree to disagree? In all honesty,
> I don't care what they're called; "thumb/thumbnail" just seems to be a
> convenient way to term such images.

It is not that I mind about what you call what. It is that the
nature of the object being called seems to be misunderstood. The
essential feature of a thumbnail is that it is but a slightly
informative link to 'the real thing' as it were. When you start
calling pics that are pretty adequate in themselves thumbnails
even though the website maker has provided further
'enhancements', imo, you are starting to lose site of the main
idea.

It is like calling someone's home or car, a "first" home or car
because there are just so much better ones that folk seem to
manage to get or want as they live on... even when it might be
some poor sod's 8th!

[yeah, ok, I am thinking of my car... :)]

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]