board controls - turning off signatures??

opiated · Post by **opiated** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:43 pm

and Fiona is definately not talentless

BIGVDOGG · Post by **BIGVDOGG** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:53 pm

The Horrible Esthete wrote:
BIGVDOGG wrote:Yeh i would have to disagree on your observation.if someone wasnt worried about someone looking over their shoulder at school this would not be an issue.(well maybe not for some people)
Actually, "LargeFiveCanine", it would still be an issue to everyone who gets annoyed at huge images in sigs; I know for a fact that day_for_night and yours truly aren't the only ones.

In reality "this would not be an issue" if people didn't put annoyingly large images in their sigs.

your insult to me doesnt dignify a response here.check your pm

tigerthelion · Post by **tigerthelion** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:06 pm

The Horrible Esthete wrote:
BIGVDOGG wrote:Yeh i would have to disagree on your observation.if someone wasnt worried about someone looking over their shoulder at school this would not be an issue.(well maybe not for some people)
Actually, "LargeFiveCanine", it would still be an issue to everyone who gets annoyed at huge images in sigs; I know for a fact that day_for_night and yours truly aren't the only ones.

In reality "this would not be an issue" if people didn't put annoyingly large images in their sigs.

Oh, isn't that cute?

A few people private messaged ya and cried about big sic pics. Oh, poor people. I feel so bad for them, and Ryan Smyth.

The Horrible Esthete · Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:41 pm

BIGVDOGG wrote: your insult to me doesnt dignify a response here.check your pm

How did I insult you? By telling you that huge pics in sigs annoy some people who aren't necessarily worried about people looking over our shoulders?

That makes me a dick?

BIGVDOGG · Post by **BIGVDOGG** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:52 pm

The Horrible Esthete wrote:
BIGVDOGG wrote: your insult to me doesnt dignify a response here.check your pm
How did I insult you? By telling you that huge pics in sigs annoy some people who aren't necessarily worried about people looking over our shoulders?

That makes me a dick?

(LargeFiveCanine)-do you think that may have something to do with it?where do you get off calling me anything other than my user name?i didnt insult you.i merely responded to an opinion with an opinion.i dont need a thread beef so if you got an issue p.m.peace

The Horrible Esthete · Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:59 pm

tigerthelion wrote:
The Horrible Esthete wrote:
BIGVDOGG wrote:Yeh i would have to disagree on your observation.if someone wasnt worried about someone looking over their shoulder at school this would not be an issue.(well maybe not for some people)
Actually, "LargeFiveCanine", it would still be an issue to everyone who gets annoyed at huge images in sigs; I know for a fact that day_for_night and yours truly aren't the only ones.

In reality "this would not be an issue" if people didn't put annoyingly large images in their sigs.
Oh, isn't that cute? A few people private messaged ya and cried about big sic pics. Oh, poor people. I feel so bad for them, and Ryan Smyth.

Uh....one person pm'd me to call me a dick for saying that big pics in sigs are annoying...but dude, it's really just an opinion, and since it applies to all who come here, I think we are all entitled to an opinion on the subject.

And I apologize (to you, at least) for the smart-ass remarks about schoolboy crushes and wet-dream subjects....I was just busting your chops a little bit.....

day_for_night · Post by **day_for_night** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:01 pm

BIGVDOGG wrote:Yeh i would have to disagree on your observation.if someone wasnt worried about someone looking over their shoulder at school this would not be an issue.(well maybe not for some people)

listen buddy,

it was just an example as to why i asked for the change. the main reason is that a message board looks alot cleaner with signatures and avatars disabled. which is what i asked for as a personal preference...the fact that this can't be done, and so pic size had to be limited, is not my fault. take it up with the board admin instead of taking pot shots at people.

and you honestly got offended by getting called 'largefivecanine'?? its a synonym of your user name! come off it...

opiated · Post by **opiated** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:01 pm

if the sigs are a sign of our wet dreams, what does that say for the darkest canuck??

The Horrible Esthete · Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:05 pm

BIGVDOGG wrote: (LargeFiveCanine)-do you think that may have something to do with it?where do you get off calling me anything other than my user name?i didnt insult you.i merely responded to an opinion with an opinion.i dont need a thread beef so if you got an issue p.m.peace

Oh. That.

Isn't that the literal translation of your screenname? I really didn't think I was crossing any lines there.

My bad BigDog. Can I call you BigDog? That's not an insult, is it?

BIGVDOGG · Post by **BIGVDOGG** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:07 pm

day_for_night wrote:
BIGVDOGG wrote:Yeh i would have to disagree on your observation.if someone wasnt worried about someone looking over their shoulder at school this would not be an issue.(well maybe not for some people)
listen buddy,

it was just an example as to why i asked for the change. the main reason is that a message board looks alot cleaner with signatures and avatars disabled. which is what i asked for as a personal preference...the fact that this can't be done, and so pic size had to be limited, is not my fault. take it up with the board admin instead of taking pot shots at people.

and you honestly got offended by getting called 'largefivecanine'?? its a synonym of your user name! come off it...

maybe if i had interaction with or we were friends with this person i wouldnt be offended.geez