Page 1 of 1
Your thoughts on signatures
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:17 am
Signatures are user-selected bits of text that follow each post by a given poster.
Signatures are currently turned off in the interest of readability, but we'd be interested to hear your opinion; would you prefer they be on, maybe for a trial period or something?
Kindly post your opinion and comment if you like.
John will wield his mighty baton of signature-deciding with imperious compassion and wisdom, I'm sure.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:28 am
There is a lot of MPSIMS, but I think I can restrain myself, that said sig./lim. [would be cool] and by saying so I am successfully repeating myself.
EDIT: MPSIMS = mundane pointless stuff i must share, sorry for the confusion :) and i should probably write in complete sentences.......
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:34 pm
No opinion - Bring on the naked ladies
'scuse me, but - where's the equivalent for female voters....??
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:51 pm
Believe me, you don't want to see these guys naked.
Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:04 pm
Actually, that's not true. You do want to see us naked. Remember that. Yes to: us naked.
As for signatures, I say: more wheat, less chaff. Unless you have a wheat allergy or are on the Atkins diet in which case I say: No wheat, less chaff.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:37 am
Merlin wrote:Believe me, you don't want to see these guys naked.
a) Ooooh you probably shouldn't put that past me. I'm a strange person. (You might have an easier life if you don't put anything
past me methinks...)
b) It's not about what I actually
want to see, it's about what I theoretically
want to be able to vote for. (Sexual equality and stuff.)
d) As one of my friends is wont to say: "Be happy. Be nude." (I feel like a hippie now)
e) Damn. I already voted.
Keep yer shirt on
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:29 pm
I like having signatures, but do think they should be limited. I'm on another message bored that obviously doesn't limit size and some of those signatures are out of control. One persons post can take up a whole page just because of their signature.
I love the guys and all, but I'm gonna have to agree w/Merlin. I really don't want to see them naked. Sorry John. ;)
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:15 pm
A Brutaful Smile wrote:I really don't want to see them naked. Sorry John. ;)
aahh... damn that chianti... (i'll so
regret this post tomorrow...)
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2003 12:06 am
being naked roolz.
"gonna have you nekkid by the end of this song" - jt
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2003 4:43 am
naked ladies all the way, with some men thrown in for good measure.
ahoy from london.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2003 3:03 pm
I wouldn't mind it, if they were text-only signatures.
Posted: Sat May 03, 2003 3:42 pm
any decision yet (except for the fact that the naked ladies got the majority)?
Posted: Sun May 04, 2003 3:38 pm
I'm getting the feeling that John is a little upset that no one wants to see him naked. I, for one, also do not want to see him naked. And I say that as a fan.
Posted: Mon May 05, 2003 7:29 am
But I want sigs. I need sigs. I totally dig/crave sigs. They make my day. So who do I have to harass to get the happy little sigs back?
Posted: Mon May 05, 2003 10:03 am
hmm....liz.....why dont you tell us how the band got its name......
Posted: Mon May 05, 2003 10:57 am
LngHrvWntrsDngr wrote:hmm....liz.....why dont you tell us how the band got its name......
Good Lord I had no idea so many people want to know that... The power I'm holding in my hands/head!!