Author Topic: Members signature  (Read 4918 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Members signature
« on: March 29, 2015, 08:01:31 PM »
An issue has arisen in relation to members signatures which if created appear at the bottom of each post they make.  This is not the first time that we have been asked to remove or alter a signature so we require a policy which is acceptable to everyone.  This is your opportunity to have your say.

The signature function has been temporarily suspended.  As it stood it allowed for up to 300 characters over two lines.  Smileys could be added if desired.

It has been suggested that any signature which another member deems to be distasteful or objectionable should not be allowed.

Over to you, please make your views known.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 08:03:34 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Members signature
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2015, 08:22:35 PM »
I don't think anything should be allowed which could be seen as goading or insincere.  Anything seen as controversial should also not be allowed.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Carana

Re: Members signature
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2015, 08:28:33 PM »
Not a frequent occurrence, but I agree with Angelo.


Offline researcher

Re: Members signature
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2015, 08:30:07 PM »


It has been suggested that any signature which another member deems to be distasteful or objectionable should not be allowed.

Over to you, please make your views known.
I think that suggestion is too broadly worded.  Personally I would be content to leave any moderation of signatures to the good sense of yourself and others on the Admin team.

Offline Anna

Re: Members signature
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2015, 08:38:54 PM »
Signatures that are offensive or likely to provoke a  negative response from other members, I don’t think should be allowed.
However the offended party should explain why it is offensive to him/her, if it is not already obvious.
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Online misty

Re: Members signature
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2015, 09:17:32 PM »
Discard it altogether. Doesn't this forum stand for justice, not propaganda?

Offline sadie

Re: Members signature
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2015, 09:19:58 PM »
Wouild you mind giving me my signature back please.

I gave no-one any permission to interfere with it and I would like it re-instated.

Thank you

sadie

Offline Anna

Re: Members signature
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2015, 09:31:05 PM »
Wouild you mind giving me my signature back please.

I gave no-one any permission to interfere with it and I would like it re-instated.

Thank you

sadie

It is just temporary measure, Sadie, until things are sorted out.  They have all been suspended.
BTW It's nice to see you back here again.
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline sadie

Re: Members signature
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2015, 09:35:32 PM »
It is just temporary measure, Sadie, until things are sorted out.  They have all been suspended.
BTW It's nice to see you back here again.
Nice to see you Anna.  I shall not be around much.  My job is mainly done.... and I am very tired

The Elite Organisations, Injustice and Old School Tie have won ..

Untouchables.

As I thought quite likely all along.



Take care. xxx


Offline Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6578
  • Total likes: 2622
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
Re: Members signature
« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2015, 10:29:06 PM »
Signatures that are offensive or likely to provoke a  negative response from other members, I don’t think should be allowed.
However the offended party should explain why it is offensive to him/her, if it is not already obvious.

I agree Anna however I do take exception to offensive remarks masquerading as biblical quotes. It doesn't take a genius to work out the real thrust of such comments without anyone explaining it.
I tell you it's Burt Reynolds

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Members signature
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2015, 11:11:23 PM »
I agree Anna however I do take exception to offensive remarks masquerading as biblical quotes. It doesn't take a genius to work out the real thrust of such comments without anyone explaining it.
you really do have a bee in your bonnet about that don't you?  What a sensitive little flower you turned out to be after all.

Offline Faithlilly

Re: Members signature
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2015, 11:22:13 PM »
you really do have a bee in your bonnet about that don't you?  What a sensitive little flower you turned out to be after all.

Lest we forget it was you who instigated all this hand wringing about signatures by insisting that  my siggie was removed though why a grown man would carp on for pages and pages about a quote he could have ignored I simply have no idea.

BTW having more important things to worry about I don't give a tinker's cuss what posters have as a signature. If I don't like it I'll simply ignore it  ?{)(**
« Last Edit: March 29, 2015, 11:28:52 PM by Faithlilly »
Moral Guilt
Detractors of the work of our British Police in bringing criminals to justice generally ignore the important distinction between moral proof and legal evidence of guilt. In not a few cases that are popularly classed with 'unsolved mysteries of crime,' the offender is known, but evidence is wanting. If, for example, in- a recent murder case of special notoriety and interest,* certain human remains had not been found in a cellar, a great crime would have been catalogued among `Police failures'; and yet, even without the evidence which sent the murderer to the gallows, the moral proof of his guilt would have been full and clear.
Robert Anderson

Online ShiningInLuz

Re: Members signature
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2015, 06:41:07 AM »
Oddly enough, since I joined I have found signatures the fastest way to learn of people's opinions and/or character.  After that, I need to plough through long threads.  I get to much the same conclusion but it takes me a lot longer.

Allow signatures.  Weed out anything that is illegal (obvious).  Weed out anything that is uncivil (it's a forum and we should be civil to each other, whether we agree with each other or not).  Otherwise it degenerates to PM's question time, which is one of the most childish farces on the planet.
In mods I trust!

Offline Puffin

Re: Members signature
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2015, 07:29:17 AM »
Hello, as I remember, my sig was a comment in Turkish.    If someone in admin or a mod would like to pm it to me (forgotten exactly what it said) I am happy to translate it.   It was not an insult, derogatory or rude.   Puffin   *&(+(+
Truth is the property of no individual but is the treasure of all men.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Members signature
« Reply #14 on: March 30, 2015, 08:32:30 AM »
Lest we forget it was you who instigated all this hand wringing about signatures by insisting that  my siggie was removed though why a grown man would carp on for pages and pages about a quote he could have ignored I simply have no idea.

BTW having more important things to worry about I don't give a tinker's cuss what posters have as a signature. If I don't like it I'll simply ignore it  ?{)(**
Yes why would a grown man bother about pursuing the truth of the matter, crazy isn't it?  Especially when the allegation is so serious, hardly worth bothering about is it?