Too busy to keep up with the digi scene.
Out turning tricks to make sure I have 20 bucks for each of my 5 kids so I can go to Walmart later and shop the after Christmas sales when the picked over crap is on sale so my kids can have the best Christmas ever. Thanks to my loyal customers, you are the best!
-posted by me with my Iphone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1,020 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1020 Newer› Newest»No it's definitely either SSD or DSP. I know, because I can tell who posts here anonymously.
@@
^^^^
why on earth would either the DSP or SSD designers do the bashing? It's probably some other store altogether.
-------------------
^^^^^^
You must be new.
^^^
I'm not new, been here since the beginning. I've just never understood the stupidity behind the thought of it being DSP or SSD designers. No one has yet explained that satisfactorily either.
They do the bashing so that people favoring other stores will turn on each other and then go visit SSD and hopefully stay. It's called reverse psychology.
Sooooo tired of seeing ISO:CU CRAP in the dst designers forum.
So stop looking at those threads. It's a simple solution.
I'm still mystified why anyone cares about other stores/designers/scrappers and what they do and what their "drama" is. It's fun to read, especially when someone gets all wound up, but anyone who actually cares is pathetic.
Now please entertain me with your outrage and profanity!
"It's fun to read, especially when someone gets all wound up..."
That's why.
My opinion: most of the people reading and commenting here are the same as you and I. Just bored and curious. I assume that really only a few people post things that are over the top rude or hateful. And I'm pretty sure that most of us can see right through it.
So you think most of the people who talk about how horrible SSD/DST/DSP is, how disgusted they are by fantasy kits/scrappers/designers, how Royanna is a liar/thief, etc., are just bored and curious, and don't really care? Or that just a few people are actually doing the posting?
I'm curious.
Why is that whenever anyone mentions being tired of a few stores, someone comes here and throws up SSD, why?
----------------------------------
It's called marketing.
So you think most of the people who talk about how horrible SSD/DST/DSP is, how disgusted they are by fantasy kits/scrappers/designers, how Royanna is a liar/thief, etc., are just bored and curious, and don't really care? Or that just a few people are actually doing the posting?
---------------------------------
I think there are some sad, lonely bored people who post. I for the life of my can't understand how someone can have a dislike for people/stores that they don't really know. This is a humongous web and there are a lot of people on it. If you don't like a designer then go find a designer you do like. Why waste precious time posting and gossiping about people you don't like.
In the same vain, if you don't like fantasy kits, don't buy fantasy kits. But why put down other people who do like fantasy kits.
"So you think most of the people who talk about how horrible SSD/DST/DSP is, how disgusted they are by fantasy kits/scrappers/designers, how Royanna is a liar/thief, etc., are just bored and curious, and don't really care? Or that just a few people are actually doing the posting?"
----------------------------
You have no idea what you are talking about honey. A lot of us DO know the stores and designers out there. Some of us work for them for gods sake and have been for years. So I think it may be more than just "sad, lonely bored people" and more that you are just way out of the loop.
You have no idea what you are talking about honey. A lot of us DO know the stores and designers out there. Some of us work for them for gods sake and have been for years. So I think it may be more than just "sad, lonely bored people" and more that you are just way out of the loop.
January 12, 2010 4:05 PM
--------------------
Okay, "honey," untie your panties and brush up on your reading comprehension and quoting skills. But not too quickly. These are the sort of posts that make me laugh, kind of like I do when I watch Judge Judy or Supernanny.
Very entertaining, but a little bit sad, too.
^^^^^
Agreed.
Why is that whenever anyone mentions being tired of a few stores, someone comes here and throws up SSD, why?
----------------------------------
It's called marketing.
January 12, 2010 3:28 PM
-------
Yeah? It ain't working.
^^^^^^
LOL
Trust me, for all of you who go on about not buying any more, that digi is dying, blah blah, there are 1000's more customers buying it up just fine!
January 10, 2010 7:17 PM
LOL! Tell yourself whatever you need to :)
SSD is the dregs of digi.
Trust me, for all of you who go on about not buying any more, that digi is dying, blah blah, there are 1000's more customers buying it up just fine!
January 10, 2010 7:17 PM
---------
And?
SSD is the dregs of digi.
January 12, 2010 6:02 PM
--------
Sigh.
SSD is the dregs of digi.
January 12, 2010 6:02 PM
----------------
If they are, what difference does it make? If you don't like the product, don't buy it. If you don't like the style, don't use it. If you don't like the people, don't hang out there. I guarantee you, no one will notice or be sad.
haha! I had to comment because my word verification is drama!
LOL @ drama.
I have a question... I have nowhere else to ask this really.
I'm looking for a designer or designers who are original, funky, love color, who concentrate on memories and journaling... they might have lots of word strips, date stamps, journaling blocks in their store.
Not interested in fantasy, or huge amounts of elements. Someone who keeps it real I guess and of course I would like the quality to be top notch. Am I asking too much? Anyone come to mind?
^^^^^
Paislee Press for a start. She sells at Oscraps.
Thanks for that. Sue Cummings looks pretty good there too... nice word art. :)
(crap I deleted it...sigh...here it is a again)Hi all. I never come here and look but I have some friends come ask me if I am going back to designing. As someone pointed out...yup I am a has been! I have NO intention of designing. I am just wanting to scrap. I posted at a site a couple times to say hi to people I have seen around the scrapping block. I am not BFF with Bren and didn't go there with her. I have been on her CT....I have loved her designs and loved using them and hope to use them still. I don't know why people need to be spiteful and bitchy. I really feel that life is too short to drink bad whine, be a horrible person and not to laugh and enjoy your family. So...just wanted to clear the air so no one has to wonder if I am going to be doing something or not.
hehehe. and before it is pointed out...I can't spell either. :-P
tracy
Do you guys all know about this House of 3 Simply Amazing kit? I just watched a video and checked it out. They are charging $50 for it with $100 and $200 for commercial. use. I don't understand how one would use this for commercial use.
http://www.houseof3.com/simply-amazing-2010-class-and-kit.html
Video: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/3795079
Not commercial use in a digital scrapbook kit design aspect. I mean I guess you would have to really add your own art to it. not your traditional CU use as we see it in digiland.
It's Heidi Swapp and Rhonna F's site and the terms are pretty straight forward: http://www.houseof3.com/licensing#commercial
^^^^^^^^
HOW CUTE ARE THEY :)
I can't believe I just watched an hour-long scrapping infomercial!
Anonymous said...
LOL @ drama.
I have a question... I have nowhere else to ask this really.
I'm looking for a designer or designers who are original, funky, love color, who concentrate on memories and journaling... they might have lots of word strips, date stamps, journaling blocks in their store.
Not interested in fantasy, or huge amounts of elements. Someone who keeps it real I guess and of course I would like the quality to be top notch. Am I asking too much? Anyone come to mind?
January 12, 2010 8:32 PM
--------------------------
Some of my favorites are Lauren Grier at SSD, Designs by Lili at TLP, Kate Hadfield at TLP, Fee Jardin at SSD (some fun doodled things). I know that Lauren Grier also sells her Layered up in you templates and has some for journaling strips and lots of word art for her kits for journal prompts. I think several of the other ladies here do too. I would check out all of these designers stores (no, I'm not on a ct for any. Just a regular customer of all of them). I love their stores. The all do a lot of their own designing/drawing. All of them love doodling. I think there are a few more at TLP that are good too.
Do not click on any of those "dots" above. Hover your mouse over them and you'll know why. Go away nasty spammer. We don't want spammers here. We prefer bitchiness, nastiness, drama, complaints and name calling LOL
My, it's quiet here. Hasn't anyone got anything juicy to say?
Not commercial use in a digital scrapbook kit design aspect. I mean I guess you would have to really add your own art to it. not your traditional CU use as we see it in digiland.
It's Heidi Swapp and Rhonna F's site and the terms are pretty straight forward: http://www.houseof3.com/licensing#commercial
__________________________________________________
Obviously this should tell anyone that digi ain't dead considering these ladies have been around the block a time or two and sell well in the paper world. Gather they saw that they could do well in the digi world also.
Of course looking at some of their designs they appear to be nothing more then what a lot of CU digi designers already design and their CU license is very limited in what you can do. I think I might buy a set just to see what the quality is like. Have found that other paper designers going into digi don't know much! ROFL
Only two posts in one day. Wow, where did all the whingers go?
Obviously this should tell anyone that digi ain't dead considering these ladies have been around the block a time or two and sell well in the paper world. Gather they saw that they could do well in the digi world also.
I don't think digi is dead. It's just like everything else in the world right now --- SLOW.
BUT IMO they (house of 3) are just looking to get a piece of the pie just like all the other paper companies /designers who have dipped their toe into the digital market. Bad timing and a little late to be jumping on the bandwagon if you ask me, but I wish them luck.
I have to say that their designs are somewhat flat, boring, and for how I like to scrap ...... unusable. I will not be making any purchases from houseof3 to say the least.
On another note does anyone ever think the digital market will SLOW DOWN??? What is it with so many designers releasing so many products on a weekly basis? Does anyone else think that the quality of products would be better if designers were not pressured to release products X number of times a month?
Don't assume that all designers are "pressured" into regular releases. That's BS. Not all stores require X amount of product and not all stores require new product every week from every designer.
I don't think Houseof3 is creating designs for digital scrapbooking per say. They are serving up hybrid creativity...that's all.
I wouldn't pay $50 for that kit of theirs, but then I could design such a thing myself.
They should work on their videos. It was a bit of train wreck. I don't really want to spend time watching them "figure out" their message while the camera is rolling. It was tedious and I lost interest halfway through - heck, at the 30 min mark of an hour show they hadn't even shown or provided a clear cut concept of what the book is supposed to do for me. I was still trying to figure that out when I closed the browser LOL.
So, for a company trying to sell what I think might be a "get organized" life journal - they showed no organization, no script or outline for the show itself and gave me no reason to buy. Hmm...why would I EVER want to give them my money to teach me how to be more organized?
LOL Maybe they need to listen to someone else's "How to get organised" videos before they try making their own. LOL
I thought SBG was an exclusive store? since Ztampf joined SBG she is still operating her own store. I thought that was kinda weird.
The store I'm at is exclusive too but we can have our own store as long as no one else sells there.
Thanks for the post about TLP, etc. I appreciate it! Just haven't been back here to say so, sorry. Don't like to appear ungrateful.
Which is pretty funny on an anon blog, when you think about it.
An "exclusive" store doesn't necessarily mean you can't sell elsewhere. It often means you can sell elsewhere as long as the items from the "exclusive" store are not sold anywhere else.
Something about things like this just leave a bad feeling with me. Seems like it's pushing Amandas TOU a little far as well but I may be wrong. But come on designers. Is it that hard to produce product (even for CU) that isn't free on the fucking internet somewhere.
http://www.elementalscraps.com/shoppe/product.php?productid=23306&cat=263&page=3
http://www.kevinandamanda.com/fonts/freescrapbookfonts/cry-kitty/
I think it's ridiculous for you to point your finger at someone and try to drag them through the mud when you obviously have no proof that they have done anything wrong.
Did you ask Amanda if she had approved it before you came here to stir up shit? Her terms of use allow for use of her fonts by digital scrap designers under certain conditions.
Quit being such an asshole.
Your missing the point dumb ass. I was giving an opinion about the lack of creativity-less shit flying around the digi world. This, for a perfect example. I never said she did anything legally wrong. Get a clue and slow your roll.
I think it's ridiculous for you to point your finger at someone and try to drag them through the mud when you obviously have no proof that they have done anything wrong.
-----------
Oh please, the name Tabatha Reed alone makes this suspicious.
6:09 you are so incredibly right. Because it's totally lame for a designer to use anything whatsoever to assist in designing. They all should draw up their own fonts and use them exclusively for their own products.
In fact, I'm gonna start pushing for designers to quit using Adobe Photoshop. Almost all of them use it and it's soooooooooo lame. If they were real designers, they'd create their own design programs, on computers that they built themselves out of toothpicks. Toothpicks which they cut themselves from trees they grew themselves.
@@
Some people have such a strong need to whine constantly that they are willing to dig up the lamest thing possible and use it as a stick to stir up the shit. I agree that you are an asshole. Get over yourself.
"6:09 you are so incredibly right. Because it's totally lame for a designer to use anything whatsoever to assist in designing. They all should draw up their own fonts and use them exclusively for their own products"
Don't you think your grasping at straws just a bit? I wasn't judging the use of CU products. In fact I have no problem at all with creative uses of it. Brush up your comprehension skills and shhhhsh please. Stop trying to make a scene.
^^^^
Way to go overboard.
I think 6.09 has a good point. It's not designing to take a font someone else designed and sell it as is and claim it as your own. Geez, even my three year old could do that. Let's get him to do that, shall we and he can be a designer too.
It's not even Amanda's font to offer a TOU on. It's been around long before pea fonts came into being.
Amanda's fonts in that section are all stolen designs from commercial paper scrapbook alphas, anyway, so it just goes around and around really. Let Lil Davis get cross at Bella Gypsy's alpha.
No 7:57 I don't think I'm grasping at straws too much. She used a font. Do you not expect designers to use fonts in their designs? I'd say it's you who are grasping for straws in your hunt to crucify someone.
As far as brushing up on my reading comprehension. What am I missing? You aren't against using CU but in your op you are bitching about not producing original product. hmmmm. What was your post about???
Oh, that's right it was about stirring up shit. So who is it that's trying to make a scene here? I guess that was you. Personally, I just get tired of seeing people dragged through the mud because someone is bored or jealous.
And no, I won't sshhhhhh. I'll stay here and irritate the shit out of you defending an innocent person. You can go ahead and realize at any point that it is you who are pointing random fingers and throwing innocent people under the bus. I'm just defending them. Wanna know why? It's because I'm a decent human being who cares about other people. Unless they are complete asshats, like yourself.
It's one thing to use a font as word art or on a journal tag or something. It's pretty ridiculous to take a free font off the internet, chop it up into .png's and call it a "commercial use alpha". Not an ounce of talent or skill went into that product, just someone looking to make a quick buck.
If anyone cares, here is the list of designers at that MScraps place:
4 Shades of Blue
Bren Boone
Doodelle
I-Scrap
Jennifer Barrette
Joyce Paul
Kelly Mickus
Polly & Rufus Designs
Sabrina's Creations
Three Paper Peonies
Oh and Hazel Olive Designs too.
10:04
That is known. All you have to do is see them posting in the forum to know who is going to be a designer there LOL!!
Although Im confused at Kelley since she is a staple at TDC.
TDC is exclusive.
I believe someone in a thread at DST mentioned a few of those designers appearing there.
They should have kept them hidden and not posting so noone would be smart and put 2 and 2 together.
If you want to keep that info hidden keep the designers hidden till you open and not have them post with everyone else.
No 7:57 I don't think I'm grasping at straws too much. She used a font. Do you not expect designers to use fonts in their designs? I'd say it's you who are grasping for straws in your hunt to crucify someone.
As far as brushing up on my reading comprehension. What am I missing? You aren't against using CU but in your op you are bitching about not producing original product. hmmmm. What was your post about???
-------
You are confusing me with someone else. I never made the original post.
I'm not against designer using CU but using something verbatim is not designing.
What I have told you before about assuming? Hmmm?
Hazel Olive is at ACOT. I cant see her going to Mscraps. Its not her style. Shes more funky.
Oh, that's right it was about stirring up shit. So who is it that's trying to make a scene here? I guess that was you. Personally, I just get tired of seeing people dragged through the mud because someone is bored or jealous.
And no, I won't sshhhhhh. I'll stay here and irritate the shit out of you defending an innocent person. You can go ahead and realize at any point that it is you who are pointing random fingers and throwing innocent people under the bus. I'm just defending them. Wanna know why? It's because I'm a decent human being who cares about other people. Unless they are complete asshats, like yourself.
January 16, 2010 8:56 PM
--------
Are you talking about yourself? You crucified me, threw me under the bus and pointed fingers and I never made the original post.
Feel like an asshat now? Hmm??
Who the hell is Doodle and I-Scrap and Polly and Rufus??? Sounds like a cartoon like The Wiggles.
why on earth would either the DSP or SSD designers do the bashing? It's probably some other store altogether.
-------------------
Ok, do designers from SSD really come here and bash people like that?
Hmmmm Hazel Olive does have a Mscraps blinkie in her siggy at DST
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=226669
Yep Hazel is moving to a new store opening soon! Why not just say what store if everyone knows Mscraps is the only new store opening end of the month.
Is Misty Mareda going to be at Mscraps too? Or is she opening her own shop?
I think Misty is retired isnt she? I forget what store she was at before. I hope she opens a shop again. I did like her stuff.
TDC isn't an exclusive store. They just require exclusive products. So Misty could be going to MScraps as well.
Hazel Olive already annouced on her blog she was going to MScraps. So did Jamie Choi who is the Paper Peonies designer.
I meant Kelly not Misty, sorry.
Then that's 2 designers confirmed, lol. I really can't see Kelley selling anywhere but TDC. She has been there forever. Though her style suits Mscraps alot better than TDC.
Jennifer Barrette also has a new store coming soon thing on her blog. Also whoever I Scraps is, she already annouced on her blog she will be at MScraps too. So I would say that list is correct.
Where are you guys finding these blogs? Share lol
Misty will be at Mscraps. It's posted on her Facebook page.
It's one thing to use a font as word art or on a journal tag or something. It's pretty ridiculous to take a free font off the internet, chop it up into .png's and call it a "commercial use alpha". Not an ounce of talent or skill went into that product, just someone looking to make a quick buck.
January 16, 2010 9:37 PM
--------
AMEN! ITA
Who the hell is Doodle and I-Scrap and Polly and Rufus??? Sounds like a cartoon like The Wiggles.
----------------------------------
Wow your so smart and completely right! Except for the fact that the Wiggles names are Grey, Anthony, Sam and Jeff. But I totally see the resemblance.
Not.
And The Wiggles aren't a cartoon.
Other than that and what the other poster said, you're spot on.
Who the hell is Doodle and I-Scrap and Polly and Rufus??? Sounds like a cartoon like The Wiggles.
----------------------------------
Wow your so smart and completely right! Except for the fact that the Wiggles names are Grey, Anthony, Sam and Jeff. But I totally see the resemblance.
Not.
January 18, 2010 9:00
----------------------------------
And your're completely wrong. I assume your meant to type Greg and not Grey??
Besides, Greg was replaced by Sam and the other Wiggle is Murray.
So it's Murray, Sam, Jeff and Anthony
Sam is hot.
Who the hell is Doodle and I-Scrap and Polly and Rufus??? Sounds like a cartoon like The Wiggles.
----------------------------------
Wow your so smart and completely right! Except for the fact that the Wiggles names are Grey, Anthony, Sam and Jeff. But I totally see the resemblance.
Not.
January 18, 2010 9:00 AM
-----------------
I thought the original comment was hilarious. You obviously have no sense of humor.
You guys are arguing your knowledge of The Wiggles now? Lame. On so many levels.
----------------------------------
Wow your so smart and completely right! Except for the fact that the Wiggles names are Grey, Anthony, Sam and Jeff. But I totally see the resemblance.
Not.
January 18, 2010 9:00 AM
^^^^^^
Come back when you buy a sense of humor at Walmart!
Anonymous Anonymous said...
You guys are arguing your knowledge of The Wiggles now? Lame. On so many levels.
January 18, 2010 5:53 PM
----------------------------------
Sure makes a nice change from arguing about who copies who or who is a crappy designer lol
Sure makes a nice change from arguing about who copies who or who is a crappy designer lol
---------------------------------
why are you reading this blog then?
I don't think Amanda made that font. I've seen it ALL OVER.
I don't know who made it originally to ascertain whether or not someone's TOU was violated, but I'm pretty sure Amanda has no claim to this font.
http://www.fonts4free.net/cry-kitty-font.html
That site says the TOU is in the zip, but all that's in there is a line that says refer to the TOU. No mention of who owns copyright.
http://www.dafont.com/cry-kitty.font
Says there: First seen on DaFont: 12-30-2005 which seems to be several years before it showed up on Amanda's site.
Just because Amanda has it on her site doesn't mean she created it / owns it / has any right to distribute it any more than the next guy. It also doesn't mean she doesn't.
We're big on presuming we know what kind of arrangements people might or might not have made, aren't we?
^^^^^^
No, 'we' aren't. I merely pointed out, along with some else, that taking a font, using it verbatim and selling it as CU was not designing.
I honestly don't give a damn who made it in the first place.
I seriously doubt that the creator of the font would have allowed someone else to sell it for commercial use; no matter whether or not we are privy to their arrangements. That would be idiotic, no matter how you look at it.
or, perhaps, people that are giving their work away for free don't give a shit what you do with it
^^^^^
You are still missing the original point. Taking a font, any font, and selling it and calling it your own is not designing.
true, but no crime either ;) don't buy it.
^^^^^^
Yes, let's just keep condoning this kind of practice by not doing anything about it.
Sigh.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sure makes a nice change from arguing about who copies who or who is a crappy designer lol
---------------------------------
why are you reading this blog then?
January 18, 2010 7:28 PM
----------------------------------
'Cause it's good for a laugh
we got ourselves a regular Nancy Drew!
no font unturned
the honor system in digi design is only as honorable as those in it.
Yes, let's just keep condoning this kind of practice by not doing anything about it.
Sigh.
January 18, 2010 8:52 PM
------------------
I agree it's lame and pathetic, but what exactly do you think should be done? If you think complaining about it here is doing something, well...
If the original creator of an item doesn't give a flying fuck what you do with the item, why do you care who does what with them? Do you think the average end-user customer who buys them cares how they were made?
I vote public flogging!
Do you think the average end-user customer who buys them cares how they were made?
January 19, 2010 3:05 PM
-----------
I think the average customer, which is me, is going to be pissed to find she paid for something she could have had for free.
Emilie Ahern just kills me with her "fashion" reports about the Golden Globes and other awards programs. Seriously, who is SHE to offer commentary on what other people look like?
Who is Emilie?
Emilie Ahern just kills me with her "fashion" reports about the Golden Globes and other awards programs. Seriously, who is SHE to offer commentary on what other people look like?
January 19, 2010 4:31 PM
-----------
Who is anyone to offer commentary on what other people look like? She can offer any opinion she wants, just like you did.
Amanda has specific terms of use for Designers allowing them to use the fonts for alphas. As long as the designer followed her terms there should be no problem.
Albeit the designer isn't very original, she wouldn't have done anything wrong.
http://kevinandamanda.com/fonts/fontsforpeas/terms-of-use/
If you know that the designer did not follow the terms properly why not jot an email to Amanda and let her take care of matters.
^^^^^
Are you following the conversation at all? Amanda can have all the TOUs in place she wants, but it's not her font to begin with.
Well people will try and sell anything whether it makes sense or not. That is why we have the term "buyer beware". Some unsuspecting designer or scrap4hire may purchase that "alpha" not realizing that the font is available for free. Just because the alpha comes in different shades of gray doesn't mean squat to me.
Has anyone contacted ES to let them know how low that is??? Or gosh maybe someone from there follows this blog so now they know!
^^^^^
Are you following the conversation at all? Amanda can have all the TOUs in place she wants, but it's not her font to begin with.
-----------------------------
Got it. Sometimes it is best to read all the posts before replying to anything!
Who owns DSA now?
^^^^^
Didn't know the orignal owners had given it up.
Does anything happen there, other than advertising? I just checked it out and that's mostly what I saw. Just one big advertisement.
Sara (kscwgirl) is one of the new co owners at DSA.
What is DSA?
Digital Scrapbook Art
Digital Scrapbook Addicts
or something else??
not all of us hang at the same sites
Crap...DST is still as unusable to me as ever. I thought they had a new server and things were better. I haven't been there in a while but it has been loading forever. I GIVE UP!
That's weird. Wonder why they took on a co-owner.
I heard a rumor that DST had been hacked and that they were having a hard time getting it up and running again. Might just be gossip though.
If the original creator of an item doesn't give a flying fuck what you do with the item, why do you care who does what with them? Do you think the average end-user customer who buys them cares how they were made?
---------
Actually I would care in this case because it's being sold as a CU item. When I buy a CU item, I don't want to worry that I could be inadvertently violating someone else's TOU. Since she didn't really create the alphas, how can she sell them as CU to someone else? I'd be okay with her making a PU alpha, but I think selling them as CU crosses the line of what's acceptable.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
I heard a rumor that DST had been hacked and that they were having a hard time getting it up and running again. Might just be gossip though.
January 20, 2010 9:02 PM
-------------------------------
Not a rumor at all but you are a rumor monger. Erik posted about it in the forum.
Not a rumor at all but you are a rumor monger.
January 20, 2010 11:00 PM
-------------------
Sound like an idiot much?
Actually I would care in this case because it's being sold as a CU item. When I buy a CU item, I don't want to worry that I could be inadvertently violating someone else's TOU. Since she didn't really create the alphas, how can she sell them as CU to someone else? I'd be okay with her making a PU alpha, but I think selling them as CU crosses the line of what's acceptable.
January 20, 2010 9:04 PM
-------
I totally agree with you.
Like I said, if the original creator of the item in question doesn't care, why should you?
There are lots of things available out there, either for sale or free, where the person selling them/giving them away doesn't even care if you sell them as they are without changes. I'm not saying I disagree with the idea of "designers" taking stuff and pretending they're talented. The designer pool is really oversaturated with crap and I do wish there were more guidelines or standards that should be adhered to. But, with that said, there isn't.
It's simply not anyone's business but the original designer of any questionable items. Bitching about it here is useless anyway. If you think there's a problem with the item someone is selling and you know where the resource they used came from, contact that person. If your morals are so high that you just can't bring your mighty self to purchase such an item knowing that it wasn't really designed by the person selling it, don't buy it. It's pretty damn simple.
^^^^^^^
wrong. wrong, and wrong again.
I care because I purchase CU items and I want to be aware that CU designers are doing things like this. If I purchase a CU item, I assume that the seller has the rights to that item and has the authority to grant me permission to use it for commercial use.
There are several concerns with this scenario:
1st. ES shouldn't sell this alpha as CU because they really don't have the authority to control the TOU - that belongs to the font creator
2nd Amanda should make it clear that she doesn't own the rights to the fonts on her site that she is redistributing. Her TOUs only apply to the fonts she created. It's not obvious from her site which fonts are which. She should really be crediting and linking back to the font owner.
What if the originator of the font changes the TOU and makes them NON-Commercial?
Also - I think it makes total sense to discuss these things on this blog. Even this example makes me realize that I need to research CU items to make sure they come from a reputable source and aren't just being redistributed. I was under the impression that I could use amanda's fonts for CU, and now (because of this blog), I know that I need to track down the font creator.
Not a rumor at all but you are a rumor monger.
January 20, 2010 11:00 PM
-------------------
What in the hell are you talking about? You are weird.
Are you seriously posting on a smack blog calling people "rumor mongers." Really??
I guess I'm a rumor monger. Oh well. Here's your new title: HYPOCRITE.
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=227276
let the smack begin
Is there some unstated assumption that all digi-scrappers are LDS? 'Cuz we're not.
Does anyone remember when those particular fonts on Amanda's site were underground? The URL was hidden and whispered about, and there was no information on ownership in the font file or on the site itself.
Pea fonts were around at that time.
I always assumed that one day Amanda just "came out" as the creator of these fonts ripped off from paper scrapping alphas, and put them up on her site. Did anyone else think this?
http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=227276
--------
Meh. Big deal.
Wow $15 for the One Love charity kit. Do they want to sell them and raise money or not? Guess it's more important to put some kind of false value on your "work".
For $5 or even $10, they'd sell a LOT more of them and raise a lot more money.
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/product.php?productid=27129&cat=0&page=1
What's up with the wandering eye? Really, really weird um, stuff...I guess it's supposed to be "altered" and "cool?" Makes me feel a little queasy when I look at it.
Wow $15 for the One Love charity kit. Do they want to sell them and raise money or not? Guess it's more important to put some kind of false value on your "work".
For $5 or even $10, they'd sell a LOT more of them and raise a lot more money.
January 21, 2010 5:25 PM
I just had to peek at it, and it has over 100 papers, 300 elements, and 6 templates. More stuff than you'd find in 3 regular $5 kits, so why not charge $15 for it? I'll be buying it.
Wow $15 for the One Love charity kit. Do they want to sell them and raise money or not? Guess it's more important to put some kind of false value on your "work".
For $5 or even $10, they'd sell a LOT more of them and raise a lot more money.
January 21, 2010 5:25 PM
-------------------
Scrap Orchard is selling it for $20. Makes $15 look like a bargain. I guess people who only donate to a cause if they get something in return will have to decide if they are getting enough to justify the cost. Might have been better to break up the kit, and people could buy the parts they want.
No they aren't. It's $15. For $20 you get the quick pages, too.
Still too much. Whether or not it's a good "deal" for $15 is irrelevant. If you're trying to donate your time and sell these to make money for charity, price it lower and move it out the door. It didn't cost anything to make, so there's no reason not to price it so that more people can afford it.
Not a rumor at all but you are a rumor monger.
January 20, 2010 11:00 PM
-------------------
What in the hell are you talking about? You are weird.
January 21, 2010 11:38 AM
----------------------------------
When someone says they "heard a rumor" when it wasn't a rumor to begin with, they are rumor mongering. So the only weird person is the idiot who posted "the rumor" and not the person who called her/him out.
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/product.php?productid=27129&cat=0&page=1
What's up with the wandering eye? Really, really weird um, stuff...I guess it's supposed to be "altered" and "cool?" Makes me feel a little queasy when I look at it.
January 21, 2010 5:31 PM
----------
I don't think it's supposed to be 'altered' or 'cool', it's just damn weird. I do a lot of altered stuff and always have but I wouldn't get that. It's ugly.
When someone says they "heard a rumor" when it wasn't a rumor to begin with, they are rumor mongering. So the only weird person is the idiot who posted "the rumor" and not the person who called her/him out.
January 21, 2010 6:01 PM
----------------
Exhibit A:
ru·mor·mon·ger (rōō'mər-mŭng'gər, -mŏng'-)
n. One who spreads rumors.
intr.v. ru·mor·mon·gered, ru·mor·mon·ger·ing, ru·mor·mon·gers
To engage in the spreading of rumors.
So when someone says "Not a rumor at all but you are a rumor monger," they aren't making sense and sound like a confused idiot.
No need to thank me, btw. I live to enlighten the ignorant.
Still too much. Whether or not it's a good "deal" for $15 is irrelevant. If you're trying to donate your time and sell these to make money for charity, price it lower and move it out the door. It didn't cost anything to make, so there's no reason not to price it so that more people can afford it.
I definitely see your point, but I look at it as a donation that comes with a kit as a bonus. If I 'just' want to donate $5 there are other ways to do it.
I wasn't involved in this collab kit. But if you spend an entire design day working on a contribution for a charity kit, you can bet your ass it costs you something. It's not "free" to design stuff. I pay for daycare, I pay for advertising, software and hardware.
Do you have a job? Is it "free" for you to create the work, or do the task that you do?
$15 is a tiny, tiny contribution when you think of how much money they really need to help out. And when you think of how much you will get for the $15, it's a great deal.
Good thing you posted anon, because you really told us what a cheap and unfeeling person you are.
When someone says they "heard a rumor" when it wasn't a rumor to begin with, they are rumor mongering. So the only weird person is the idiot who posted "the rumor" and not the person who called her/him out.
January 21, 2010 6:01 PM
------------------
Actually, the reason I said it was a rumor, is because I don't visit DST so I didn't see that post. I read that DST had been hacked in a store forum. But since I didn't know if it was true, I clarified that I had heard a rumor, and further went on to say that it might be gossip.
You are kind of an ass. Are you completely unaware of that?
Your full off shit. you did not go on to say it may be gossip. I agree with the person who said you were rumor mongering. YOU stated you heard a rumor. Did you see where someone else said "i heard a rumor". No, you repeated what you read elsewhere and YOU decided it was a rumor.
Dearest 8:50 PM. First of all, calm it down a wee notch. This isn't a life changing issue and you sound like you are about to burst an artery.
Here is a copy of what I originally wrote. Please pay careful attention to the last sentence where I said that it might be gossip:
"I heard a rumor that DST had been hacked and that they were having a hard time getting it up and running again. Might just be gossip though.
January 20, 2010 9:02 PM"
That was copied and pasted. So...yep, looks like I did go on to say it was gossip didn't I?
Just to clear it up, I read a forum post that asked if anyone knew if the rumor was true that DST had been hacked. I never went back to that thread because it wasn't important to me to find out.
Not sure why you are so angry. I'm not posting against DST or for DST. I really have no opinion about them either way. Someone asked on the blog why DST was so slow. I was simply responding as to what I thought the problem might be. I was being chatty and informative because I was bored. Not trying to stir up trouble in any way.
I think maybe you misunderstood my intentions? Or you are a DST moderator and are pissed? Or you hacked DST and you want it known as a fact? Really, why are you so uptight about it?
^^^^
I'd have to agree. What is that person so uptight about?
You weren't rumor mongering, not in the usual and normal sense of the word anyway. Maybe in the world that Miss Uptight lives in though.
Simple answer is, she's a psycho--one among many that post here. Don't play into her ravings and explain yourself, don't try to analyze what she's saying, don't spend half a second wondering what her problem is. Just sit back and enjoy the show, and keep feeding us any rumors or potential rumors you come across. That's why NORMAL people come here.
Is there some unstated assumption that all digi-scrappers are LDS? 'Cuz we're not.
________________________________
I looked at the thread and call me stupid, but wtf is "LDS"?
^^^^^^
Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons.
Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons.
________________________________
Oh. Thanks.
So she's going to have a blog train that only mormons can't participate in? Isn't that a bit strange? Why would someone do that?
Is there some unstated assumption that all digi-scrappers are LDS? 'Cuz we're not.
January 21, 2010 2:02 PM
-------
I'm not even sure where you are getting that from.
Well, I'm going to start a blog train, but only Catholics can join in. So the rest of you heathens step away from your keyboards, cause you ain't invited.
^^^^^
Grow up!
the jesus photo and the book of morman in the train totally wierded me out on the "insert soul train sound" blog
I just remember one lady getting attacked for having a store of Christians only and here is LDS saying only can apply? is this really a business or are we all playing dress up?
^^^^
What kind of question is that? Maybe a handful of individuals have gone down the religious route, it doesn't mean the whole industry is playing dress up, does it?
I doubt it took any of them "all day" to create their part, but lets assume it did.
I thought the idea was that they donate their time and the rest of us donate our money.
I thought the objective was to collect as much money as possible.
Unemployment is at an all time high, and many of those who ARE employed, have taken a significant pay cut in order to stay that way.
I'm sure many people would LIKE to donate $15 to help the people of Haiti, but if it comes down to a choice of doing that, or putting food on their own table, I'm pretty sure I know which one they will choose.
At $5, far more people would have the opportunity to donate, and in turn more money would be raised for charity.
At no time did I imply the kit was not a good deal. I just think the contributing designers (or whoever set the price) seem to have lost sight of the objective. I'd rather sell 10 kits at $5 and raise $50 than sell 2 of them at $15 and raise $30.
But that would require me to come off my high horse, and that first step is a doozy.
If you think this whole thing isn't 75% advertising and self-promotion, you're kidding yourself. At least this time, it's for a good cause.
I picked up the One Love collab last night for $15 from SO, and it's great. Like a previous poster said, it's jam packed with stuff and for $15 donation you can feel good about contributing to the people of Haiti, but you also great one amazing kit. Well worth it, IMO.
Just as long as your donation makes it to the charity for Haiti!
....
I picked up the One Love collab last night for $15 from SO, and it's great. Like a previous poster said, it's jam packed with stuff and for $15 donation you can feel good about contributing to the people of Haiti, but you also great one amazing kit. Well worth it, IMO.
January 22, 2010 8:43 AM
Just as long as your donation makes it to the charity for Haiti!
__________________________________
That was my thought. I'll just send my check directly to the Red Cross. I know for sure it's getting there which is not to say that it wouldn't if I bought the kit, but when there's a lot of money and no internal/corporate monetary controls, there always seems to be too much tempation for some - especially if they've been hit hard by bad times themselves.
Are the profit statements going to be released to the public on this chartable undertaking? How much was raised/how many kits were sold/ how much money was sent to Haiti/by what means was it sent/etc. In this type of sitatuation, I would think that transparancy would be inportant.
To which charity are they donating the proceeds?
The proceeds from the sale of this kit will be donated to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. We chose the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund not only because it embodies the spirit of One Love, but also because 100% of the donations will go to the relief and recovery efforts in Haiti and because they are working to provide both immediate relief and long-term support to the earthquake survivors.
I am LDS and I think it is very weird.
Maybe if it were for a LDS themed kit it would make sense to invite LDS designers only but other than that I can't think of any reason why...
We chose the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund not only because it embodies the spirit of One Love, but also because 100% of the donations will go to the relief and recovery efforts in Haiti and because they are working to provide both immediate relief and long-term support to the earthquake survivors.
January 22, 2010 12:17 PM
--------------
Geez, it's a shame that Mr Bush couldn't do the same for his own country men and women when Hurricane Katrina hit.
Sorry, I'm not getting the kit if it's going to that fund.
I think it's the elder Bush and Clinton, not George W.
When I saw the ad for it on television, it was GW sitting next to Billy.
It is G.W., which is what makes me so mad.
Geez, it's a shame that Mr Bush couldn't do the same for his own country men and women when Hurricane Katrina hit.
Sorry, I'm not getting the kit if it's going to that fund.
January 23, 2010 1:04 AM
--------------------
Great excuse! So will you be donating to some other, worthier charity? I also suggest choosing one that doesn't give you anything in return (digikit, whatever).
I know the kit is for a good cause but who even wants that much in one kit? I simply would not use that much stuff. Just my personal preferences, though.
Great excuse! So will you be donating to some other, worthier charity? I also suggest choosing one that doesn't give you anything in return (digikit, whatever).
January 23, 2010 5:58 PM
-------
Unlike you, I don't need to get anything in return when I donate to a charity. I already made my donation, with nothing in return except a good feeling. Not all of us are as shallow as you.
Great excuse! So will you be donating to some other, worthier charity? I also suggest choosing one that doesn't give you anything in return (digikit, whatever).
January 23, 2010 5:58 PM
-------
Unlike you, I don't need to get anything in return when I donate to a charity. I already made my donation, with nothing in return except a good feeling. Not all of us are as shallow as you.
January 23, 2010 6:57 PM
---------------------------------
I suggest you reread what she said. She did not say she would only donate if she got something in return. She was being sarcastic toward to original poster. sheez!
I suggest you reread what she said. She did not say she would only donate if she got something in return. She was being sarcastic toward to original poster. sheez!
January 23, 2010 7:40 PM
------------------------
Some people are so literal, good sarcasm is wasted on them. Thanks for sticking up for me though. :-) I'm getting all warm and fuzzy feeling over here. Garsh....
I suggest you reread what she said. She did not say she would only donate if she got something in return. She was being sarcastic toward to original poster. sheez!
January 23, 2010 7:40 PM
-------
I read exactly what she wrote and I stand by my original comment. If that was meant to be sarcastic, she needs more lessons coz she doesn't have it quite right yet, she just sounded like a loser.
Some people are so literal, good sarcasm is wasted on them. Thanks for sticking up for me though. :-) I'm getting all warm and fuzzy feeling over here. Garsh....
January 23, 2010 9:18 PM
--------------
That wasn't good sarcasm, it was just lame.
For the 3rd time, the original poster never said the kit wasn't WORTH $15. Just that they'd make more money for the charity if it was more affordable.
But the original poster is tired of trying to battle wills with the unarmed, so feel free to carry on with completely missing the point.
I completely agree. As to this earlier comment:
-------------------------------
I wasn't involved in this collab kit. But if you spend an entire design day working on a contribution for a charity kit, you can bet your ass it costs you something. It's not "free" to design stuff. I pay for daycare, I pay for advertising, software and hardware.
Do you have a job? Is it "free" for you to create the work, or do the task that you do?
--------------------------
Completely not the point. Yes, it costs time and possibly some money but it's for charity and the contributing designers donated their time, not money. All proceeds for the kit are to benefit the Haitians, not the designers or the stores selling it. Therefore, the more money generated overall, not for each kit sold, the better.
Personally, I think it would've been better for participating designers to contribute individual, smaller kits with lower price tags on them to generate more interest, variety and cash rather than one HUGE kit that no one could possibly make use of everything and (some feel) required a higher price tag. Giant, monstrous kits have no appeal to me. Just MHO.
^^^^^^^
That's just the point, this is all a matter of opinion. It's not a fact that 3x as many people would buy the kit for $5 instead of $15, there's no proof that they would collect more money by charging less. Personally, I can see how it's more likely that (for example) 300 people will buy it for $15 than 900 people will buy it for $5. I think the designers realized that charging 1/3 the price means having to find 3x the buyers, and priced it accordingly.
Yes, it costs time and possibly some money but it's for charity and the contributing designers donated their time, not money.
January 24, 2010 10:16 AM
--------------------------------
Designers are to to behave in a professional manner and to treat their designing as a business.
I'm here to tell you something: My time IS money. Every minute that takes me away from the time I'd spend designing products for sale IS money I am throwing at something else. And while it my well be commendable and laudable, it IS money lost.
Now if you're a hobbyist, this doesn't hold.
Good thing you posted anon, because you really told us what a cheap and unfeeling person you are.
January 21, 2010 7:18 PM
And good thing YOU posted anon, too. You just told us what an obnoxious bitch you are.
After all the scams in digi, it's beyond stupid to expect your "donation" to go anywhere except some thief's pocket. Anyone who wants to donate $5, $15, or $5000 can do it through legitimate charities or organizations.
Whoever said that these "charity" kits are all about self promotion is totally spot on. And if you're damn lucky, all they're doing is cheesing lots of publicity out of it--most of them outright steal the money that scrappers think is going to charity.
I don't do much digi shopping these days, and I hadn't heard of the One Love Kit. I just went and took a look. I expected to be unimpressed, but I really liked it. With so many designers involved, it's probably a safe bet that the funds will make it to the charity. But I'd buy it just because I like the kit. Unfortunately, $15 for a digi kit is just not doable with my current budget. Too bad, because it's the first kit in ages that I've actually liked.
I wish I were in a situation where I could spend $15 on 1 kit to benefit a good cause. I'm not though. With the mess my own country is in (US), even $5 is a stretch, though it would be more doable.
To all those people buying the kit and feeling good about 'donating' to charity, quit kidding yourselves. You are buying a kit, pure and simple. If you were that concerned with donating to charity, you'd do it direct.
^^^^^^
How do you know we're not donating in other ways as well? For me this is a quick, easy donation because I haven't had a chance to do the research yet to figure out which organization I want to give my 'real' donation to. I did the same thing in the special collection plate at church today. I felt bad for not making a donation yet, so I decided to take an easy opportunity to donate a small amount that will tide over my conscience until I have a chance to do some real research. It had very little do to with the kit, it had more to do with the convenience. Is that so wrong?
^^^^
I don't see anything convenient about logging into a store, putting a kit in your cart and then checking out. It's just as easy to donate online through your bank or your charity of choice.
Besides, I never said it was wrong, but you are still purchasing a kit. The charity donation is a 'bonus'.
I have a very good friend who lives about an hour north of PAP. She says to be very careful who you donate to, as the government of Haiti is so corrupt, most donations do not make it to the people. She said that even donating through a church doesn't always help, as the clergy in Haiti will use it to gain political power. She mentioned Red Cross and a couple of others I hadn't heard of as good ones to use to send your donation.
--After all the scams in digi, it's beyond stupid to expect your "donation" to go anywhere except some thief's pocket.--
____
Exactly. After the things I've read and heard about, I won't be involved in any charity kits, either on the designing end or purchasing end. There's too many untrustworthy people in this business and, unfortunately, it doesn't take many thieves to spoil the whole bunch.
I think you are pretty safe donating to Red Cross, CARE, Catholic Relief Services, the Clinton/Bush Fund. They are all big and already on the ground and running in Haiti. The organization needs to be tied into the politics and military to even get permission to land planes. These organizations have enough clout to actually get something done fast.
In the future, the smaller organizations may be effective, but right now I'm sticking with the bigger ones. I think the One Love choice of the Clinton/Bush fund is a good choice - they were the organization behind the charity concert that was all over the TV the other night so they've raised a ton of money. And this is not the time to let petty politics stand in the way of helping the people in Haiti.
Technically, as far as charity kits go it is really the designers who are donating the money. It's no different to buying any other kit. You pay for the kit, the designer/store split the money. In this instance the money the designers/stores would normally earn goes to the charity so it really is the designers/stores who are making the donation.
11:46, do you work really hard at being such a hard-core bitch, or does it just come naturally?
I don't see anything convenient about logging into a store, putting a kit in your cart and then checking out. It's just as easy to donate online through your bank or your charity of choice.
Do you have difficulty with reading comprehension? Here's a lesson in inferring things from what you read: I said that I haven't had time to research charities yet, so you should be able to infer that I do not have a charity of choice at the moment. Like the other ladies here have been saying, it's hard to know which charities to trust. Since I regularly purchase from Scrap Orchard anyway, it really was convenient for me to buy this kit, whether or not you can see anything convenient about it. Try being a little less critical of others, you really will be a happier person for it.
I'm glad to see that there are some people here supporting the charity kit.
It suprises me to see so that so many are so upset about it. Sometimes people just do things to be good people. This kit is for charity. I don't understand why you would want to read controversy into it. There isn't a conspiracy behind every single thing done in the digi community.
You don't even have to participate in this particular charity if you don't want to or don't have the money to. That's totally understandable. But why try to talk others out of being supportive of a great cause? Quit being so paranoid. I promise that it really is ok to just feel good about something every once in a while.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
11:46, do you work really hard at being such a hard-core bitch, or does it just come naturally?
January 25, 2010 8:40 AM
-------
What are you talking about? Where am I bitchy?
Try being a little less critical of others, you really will be a happier person for it.
January 25, 2010 10:12 AM
---------
Try following your own advice. I wasn't being critical and I understood perfectly what you had written. It seems to me that you are the one being critical and suffering from reading comprehension.
You are reading way too much between the lines, but then, I should be used to it. Assumptions run rife around here. I always think it's your own indecisions coming out.
But why try to talk others out of being supportive of a great cause? Quit being so paranoid.
-----
I don't see anyone trying to talking anyone out of purchasing the kit.
I see people talking about past charities. I see people talking about not wanting to support the Bush/Clinton charity. I see people talking about how the kit isn't useful to them as it is overloaded. I don't see anyone saying don't buy the kit.
Seems to me you are being paranoid.
Try being a little less critical of others, you really will be a happier person for it.
January 25, 2010 10:12 AM
***********************
Try being a little less nastier, you'll be a happier person for it.
Seems to me you are being paranoid.
January 25, 2010 5:47 PM
You're right. I am a little paranoid I think. The talk that mainly worries me is the talk of the money not making it to the charity or the talk of the designers only doing this for advertising and self-promotion. I just worry that people won't donate because of completely unsupported rumors.
Honestly, I'd be happy for people to donate to any charity they like for this cause. It doesn't matter to me if they buy that particular kit. I just want people to donate to the cause and not to be swayed against it by rumors becuase it's such an important effort right now. I hope that makes sense.
^^^^^
It does. Thanks for explaining.
Try being a little less nastier, you'll be a happier person for it.
How was I being nasty? In my opinion it's nasty to bash others for donating money by saying that they only donated because they wanted the kit, basically saying that anyone who used that avenue for their donation was only doing it for selfish reasons. She was being unnecessarily critical of other people's good intentions. Yet I'm nasty for suggesting she should be less critical? Sheesh, I just don't get people sometimes.
^^^^^
You were far more critical in your replies than the OP. You feel it's okay for you to give your opinion in a snarky manner, but that is not considered bashing, but any opinion the OP had was considered bashing. Seems a tad hypocritical to me and you go to Church too. Tut, tut, shame on you.
I will be buying the Haiti kit at Songbird Ave. As a site/store set up just for fundraising, it is the only place I will buy charity kits from.
^^^^^
Are they doing a kit? Who's involved?
Fifty-something designers, several big names and teams from one or two of the big stores. It's a vast kit (300+ pieces?), looks really nice from the previews that have been distributed to CT members.
Let's not have negative conversation regarding a charity kit. There are people without homes and who have lost loved ones who are in need of help.
Who cares if someone wants to buy a kit or not. Who cares if a designer wants to promote her business. If you are concerned that the funds from a charity kit won't go to the charity, then send a donation directly. If you don't like the charity that the funds are going to then pick your own charity. If you think $15 for a charity kit is too much, then donate $5 or $2 to the Red Cross.
There is so much each of can do to help in times of crisis. Calling names and being mean about differences of opinion is not the help that is needed right now.
http://www.songbirdavenue.com/
http://www.designerdigitals.com/digital-scrapbooking/supplies/product_info.php/products_id/9044
going to different organizations...highly believe in doctors without borders!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I ditto doctors without borders. They are who I donated to after the tsunami
Technically, as far as charity kits go it is really the designers who are donating the money. It's no different to buying any other kit. You pay for the kit, the designer/store split the money. In this instance the money the designers/stores would normally earn goes to the charity so it really is the designers/stores who are making the donation.
---------------
Not necessarily true. Many people will buy a charity kit to support a particular cause, when they wouldn't have normally bought the kit. In the case of Haiti, I've already donated to CARE and through a smaller organization at my kids school. But, I'll probably purchase one or more of the Haiti kits coming out because I want to do more. And I might as well get to enjoy a new kit at the same time. I don't understand all the negativity. Charity kits are a win-win as long as the people running them are trustworthy. No need to try to make people feel guilty about participating in them.
I wasn't the one being negative :) Just giving my take on it. Buying a charity kit is no real difference to a regular purchase. You get somwthing for your money. The designers/store owners aren't receiving the money they normally would but donating it to charity. I wasn't trying to argue anything - just my observation. To buy or not to buy is up to each individual.
The charity would get more money if you donated directly, since PayPal will be sure to take a nice cut off the top when you pay for the kit. But, it's a good solution for people who feel like they need to "get something" for their donation. If it gets people donating, then it's all good. The more money donated, the better.
I'm sorry 5:04 and 8:12, whether or not you feel like you're being negative, your message coming across as very negative. You're both very passive-aggressively suggesting that people who buy charity kits are only doing it for selfish reasons. You're belittling people's generosity by making it seem like we wouldn't give without getting something in return. That's negative and it doesn't need to be said.
Is it just me, or do Ruby's kits always looked like a lot of repackaged Dover clipart?
http://shop.scrapbookgraphics.com/product.php?productid=27201&cat=0&page=1
wow awesome kit!!never heard of dover, but like this!
9:08
I was definitely NOT being passive-aggressive. You totally missed the point. People were bitching over whether they would "donate" their money towards a charity kit. I was merely pointing out that in effect it is the designers who are donating. I WAS NOT being negative at all so shut the fuck up. You are the negative one who is trying to make somebody else's word negative. Grow up. Must be a slow day if all you can do is make such assinine comments.
Post a Comment