By darkmage on Sunday, January 31, 1999 - 07:30 am:
>IC EXPOSURE RELEASE FIRST PACK (mindphunc)
>IC Exposure, a new art, lit and music group announce their first release. Get it over at >Artpacks.Acid.Org. ice_01release1999.rar (640,819 bytes). Includes high res 10 JPEGs, dark lit and >IT remix.
>Just before someone gets upset or confused. ICE is not iCE. When we write ICE we mean IC >Exposure. Someone suggested this might cause confusion. We'll make sure to use our complete >name on our next release. (In relation to the current filename as well) :-)
--------------------------------------------
Are you people just fucking stupid? Are you actually so ignorant that you couldn't have noticed in advance that you would have the same achronym?
Hopefully your artwork is a bit more creative than your name. Oh wait, nevermind. I just downloaded the pack...
-darkmage [iCE]
By crayONOFF on Sunday, January 31, 1999 - 09:35 am:
where is the damn pack anyway? i tried looking at artpacks.acid.org, but i didn't see it.. am i stupid or is it available somewhere else?
By dangermouse on Sunday, January 31, 1999 - 10:35 pm:
Apparently it as supposed to be there, but I didn't see it when I went looking. If anyone sees it gimme a link so I can put it in the pack downloads..
By Funbaby on Sunday, January 31, 1999 - 11:06 pm:
I got it off ftp.cdrom.com, in the pub/artpacks/1999 directory or something.
By iceboy on Monday, February 1, 1999 - 01:02 am:
it's a common habit in scene to have "Ice" as a nick - every warezgroup have Icers, but now the kids want to take the name for a group too :). that's quite stupid.
about the pack, well, is the "revolution" or "the alternative vibe" all back with Plugins? that's all seen before, no need to d/l.
By mongi on Monday, February 1, 1999 - 03:20 am:
I foudn the pack on artpacks.acid.org. No comments on the content here, you'll prolly see a review of it on hirez.org
By crayONOFF on Monday, February 1, 1999 - 10:06 am:
yeah, i didn't like the pack at all.. i liked the look of "pieces of the puzzle" or what it was called.. but it was sort of empty and poorly executed overall.... it was to be expected though i guess :P
By RaD Man on Monday, February 1, 1999 - 11:44 am:
I want to know why our script didn't delete the file due to non-compliance of the 8.3 DOS filename rule in place.
Hm!
Would the authors kindly like to suggest an alternate filename so that it doesn't get deleted?
-R