Signatures

[Barely Human]

That ludicrous picture represents what you have achieved??? How on earth do you figure that?? Remind to not come to any event you're involved with!!!!!! :lol:

Hmmmmm....

[Barely Human]

Thier seams to be a pattern emerging here.....

Lets see if i can dig any deeper....

[Barely Human]

No, that didn't make me laugh, but this did:

Funny


:lol:

Hmmmm.....

[Barely Human]

My tuppence worth : regardless of any artistic merit, or lack of, they definitely do slow the board down and make it much more difficult for people to use the board discreetly at work. Therefore they are definitely a deterrent to users.
As people (and coincidentally it seems to be the same people who are wittering on about "mutual respect" who are the main offenders) can't, or don't, voluntarily seem to want to respect the fact that it is annoying at best for work users - and some of the images, particularly the dodgy porn ones, could be sackable offences for some people in their jobs. For example, that one Wez has just used is blocked by our firewall, so my IP address will be appearing on our admins report for attempting to access a banned site every time I read a thread with that signature in it.

I agree that there should be a size restriction at the very least, if not an outright ban on them. Text only signatures would be preferrable.

Now this guy was the first person on the no signature side of it to post something constructive, and non offesive to other board members.

[Ryan]

No, that didn't make me laugh, but this did:

Funny


:lol:

Hmmmm.....

I don't see what you're getting at, this one here was in jest and certainly not a dig at anyone, and myself and Wez have already spoken about, so IQ, instead of wasting your energy on childish "one-upmanship" (and as an admin aswell, shame on you :lol: ) why don't you try and give us the choice to switch avatars and sigs on and off??

[Barely Human]

No, that didn't make me laugh, but this did:

Funny


:lol:

Hmmmm.....

I don't see what you're getting at, this one here was in jest and certainly not a dig at anyone, and myself and Wez have already spoken about, so IQ, instead of wasting your energy on childish "one-upmanship" (and as an admin aswell, shame on you :lol: ) why don't you try and give us the choice to switch avatars and sigs on and off??

Im not trying to get one up on you, ive got much better things to do with my time. The fact is, i cant stand it when people say one thing, and then change thier minds about it later! You say that the negativity is by small minded people who want to keep thier signature, when, this post was made negative in the first place by your coments! I have allready put my view across that it would be a good idea to have the choice, and i have even posted the code for this to be implitmented, which, is a lot more than you have done, which is basically go - They looks shit!

So you tell me who is the childish one?

[Ryan]

My tuppence worth : regardless of any artistic merit, or lack of, they definitely do slow the board down and make it much more difficult for people to use the board discreetly at work. Therefore they are definitely a deterrent to users.
As people (and coincidentally it seems to be the same people who are wittering on about "mutual respect" who are the main offenders) can't, or don't, voluntarily seem to want to respect the fact that it is annoying at best for work users - and some of the images, particularly the dodgy porn ones, could be sackable offences for some people in their jobs. For example, that one Wez has just used is blocked by our firewall, so my IP address will be appearing on our admins report for attempting to access a banned site every time I read a thread with that signature in it.

I agree that there should be a size restriction at the very least, if not an outright ban on them. Text only signatures would be preferrable.

Now this guy was the first person on the no signature side of it to post something constructive, and non offesive to other board members.

And anyway, why does something have to be oversimplified x 1000 for anyone to understand a point around here?? If people hadn't reacted badly initially then this ridiculous topic wouldn't have to be nearly 10 pages long, and people like Patrick wouldn't have to (repeatedly) process very simple messages into a discourse that can be understood by a child.
It was a simple request initially, to get rid of them - I maintain that I think that they look absolutely dire, but that's neither here nor there, but if a community (of 1000's of members, hundreds of thousands of posts, numerous forums, and loads of moderators) such as this can operate pretty smoothly then I don't see what the problem is in turns of simply giving us a choice to switch them on or off. is it unreasonable??
This topic would stop dead should this be enabled, then we could all stop wasting our time going round and round in circles and focus more on the music discussion.

[Ryan]

No, that didn't make me laugh, but this did:

Funny


:lol:

Hmmmm.....

I don't see what you're getting at, this one here was in jest and certainly not a dig at anyone, and myself and Wez have already spoken about, so IQ, instead of wasting your energy on childish "one-upmanship" (and as an admin aswell, shame on you :lol: ) why don't you try and give us the choice to switch avatars and sigs on and off??

Im not trying to get one up on you, ive got much better things to do with my time. The fact is, i cant stand it when people say one thing, and then change thier minds about it later! You say that the negativity is by small minded people who want to keep thier signature, when, this post was made negative in the first place by your coments! I have allready put my view across that it would be a good idea to have the choice, and i have even posted the code for this to be implitmented, which, is a lot more than you have done, which is basically go - They looks shit!

So you tell me who is the childish one?

]

I give up on you man, and I recomend that you add a "zero" to username.

[Barely Human]

My tuppence worth : regardless of any artistic merit, or lack of, they definitely do slow the board down and make it much more difficult for people to use the board discreetly at work. Therefore they are definitely a deterrent to users.
As people (and coincidentally it seems to be the same people who are wittering on about "mutual respect" who are the main offenders) can't, or don't, voluntarily seem to want to respect the fact that it is annoying at best for work users - and some of the images, particularly the dodgy porn ones, could be sackable offences for some people in their jobs. For example, that one Wez has just used is blocked by our firewall, so my IP address will be appearing on our admins report for attempting to access a banned site every time I read a thread with that signature in it.

I agree that there should be a size restriction at the very least, if not an outright ban on them. Text only signatures would be preferrable.

Now this guy was the first person on the no signature side of it to post something constructive, and non offesive to other board members.

And anyway, why does something have to be oversimplified x 1000 for anyone to understand a point around here?? If people hadn't reacted badly initially then this ridiculous topic wouldn't have to be nearly 10 pages long, and people like Patrick wouldn't have to (repeatedly) process very simple messages into a discourse that can be understood by a child.
It was a simple request initially, to get rid of them - I maintain that I think that they look absolutely dire, but that's neither here nor there, but if a community (of 1000's of members, hundreds of thousands of posts, numerous forums, and loads of moderators) such as this can operate pretty smoothly then I don't see what the problem is in turns of simply giving us a choice to switch them on or off. is it unreasonable??
This topic would stop dead should this be enabled, then we could all stop wasting our time going round and round in circles and focus more on the music discussion.

No, the topic doesnt have to be simplyfied, but you dont get my point here....

You started this thread, and all you had to say was -

Just wondering if thier is any chance of a avatar/signature on off button, as its a bit dodgy with all these pictures at work.

Instead you posted -

Many on here look atrocious. They are filled with info that nobody reads, and generally make me look much more conspicuous at work.
I call for an outright ban on these self promotong monstrosities. I can just about tolerate some text. Anyone else?

The first reply was a sensible one -

lol, since about 70% of the board have them i dont think your going to get a good responce , i think there ok if there a sensible size but the gigantic ones can be a bit

Then your reply could be seen as a bit offensive -

What's up with your signature?? Did you design that?? Is it you??
It's OK to look at, like, once....but 50 times on a single thread? Do you get where I'm coming from??

Then, death on a stick decides to make the post completely negative by posting these stupid coments -


some people need to learn to use an imaging program. unless they're deliberately taking up the entire screen with their oversized flashy banners. I guess it's some kind of "flash car" syndrome, posting a great big image to make up for what's lacking elsewhere.

some forum software prevents the sig showing in all but a posters first post in any one thread.

Actually, going back and noticing which avatars/sigs I find annoying, they seem to belong to equally annoying individuals, so there seems to be a correlation there.

Wich you see, is where all this shit has come from! You didnt help the situation by making yourself look very arorgant by posting this -


No ones getting shirty, we're just saying that it looks absolutey sh1t.

I dont think that was a constructive coment, do you?

If you and death on a stick hadnt started the childishness in the first place, then we would be having the convesation now.

[Ryan]

Many on here look atrocious. They are filled with info that nobody reads, and generally make me look much more conspicuous at work.
I call for an outright ban on these self promotong monstrosities. I can just about tolerate some text. Anyone else?

Not to mention how badly they fish'n'chips up all the alignments on my screen.

For the record, here were my initial posts. Personally, I don't see any problem with them - they are merely stating my opinion and offering reasons to back these opinions up. These are certainly not offensive (or whatever they are being construed to be.)

Anyway, I can really say, or add no more to this discussion, so if we could have a choice to switch sigs and avatars on and off, then I will lick your bottom forever. :D

[Barely Human]

give up on you man, and I recomend that you add a "zero" to username.

Seriusly mate, your getting rather tiresome with your remarks, and to be honest, i dont think you will last much longer on this board if you carry on this way.

[death on a stick]

Then, death on a stick decides to make the post completely negative by posting these stupid coments -


some people need to learn to use an imaging program. unless they're deliberately taking up the entire screen with their oversized flashy banners. I guess it's some kind of "flash car" syndrome, posting a great big image to make up for what's lacking elsewhere.

some forum software prevents the sig showing in all but a posters first post in any one thread.

Actually, going back and noticing which avatars/sigs I find annoying, they seem to belong to equally annoying individuals, so there seems to be a correlation there.

Those aren't negative comments, they are observations on the reality of what I see on this board. If you see those observations as being negative, it's because of the content of them, not the fact that I've illustrated them. As you seem to agree that my observations reflect things that are undesirable it would appear we have no dispute, and I'll pre-accept your apology for making your own observations without bothering to pay attention.

[Esox Lucius]

give up on you man, and I recomend that you add a "zero" to username.

Seriusly mate, your getting rather tiresome with your remarks, and to be honest, i dont think you will last much longer on this board if you carry on this way.

quite funny that, he has already been banned the once before :lol:

[Barely Human]

give up on you man, and I recomend that you add a "zero" to username.

Seriusly mate, your getting rather tiresome with your remarks, and to be honest, i dont think you will last much longer on this board if you carry on this way.

quite funny that, he has already been banned the once before :lol:

Really? Who is he?

[Patrick]

give up on you man, and I recomend that you add a "zero" to username.

Seriusly mate, your getting rather tiresome with your remarks, and to be honest, i dont think you will last much longer on this board if you carry on this way.

quite funny that, he has already been banned the once before :lol:

Really? Who is he?

He's Ryan.

[Esox Lucius]

ryan blackman



give him his due though, he is a very good dj

it must be a southern thing when people get so anal :lol:

[Barely Human]

ryan blackman



give him his due though, he is a very good dj

it must be a southern thing when people get so anal :lol:

:lol:

[~cheeky~]

it must be a southern thing when people get so anal :lol:

oi not all of us :lol:

[Esox Lucius]

tis just a joke.

[~cheeky~]

i know that why i put a laughing smilie.