Signature Picture Guidelines. Read before posting signature pics!
07-29-2004, 08:02 AM
#1
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Signature Picture Guidelines. Read before posting signature pics!
Since people seem to have FORGOTTEN the rules...
Having pictures in our signatures is a privilege and not a right. Because of this, certain guidelines must be followed to ensure that all org members can have an enjoyable browsing experience. Signatures in violation are subject to measures by the moderating staff, including removal of signature and/or punitive measures against the member - depeding on how egregious the violation is.
Here is the relevant information:
"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Maxima.org Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."
Basically, this says no sexually-oriented content anywhere, including signatures. What is sexually-oriented content? Well, we have had numerous discussions on the org, and while many people have differing opinions, it is the OUR interpretation that counts. To make viewing easier (and safer) for children and people at work, it has been determined that any image that is even REMOTELY offensive is not allowed. This includes women in bathing suits laying on cars, models in skimpy or revealing clothes, images of breasts or butts, and basically all imagery related to anything other than Maximas (or other vehicles). As you may have noticed, this does NOT allow for off-topic signature pics such as sports teams or vendor websites. We will evaluate each of these on a case-by-case basis, but we have a tendency to ALLOW most signatures of this nature. In the end, what we say goes.
We DO understand that this standard is VERY subjective and that it may be hard to understand at first. The general thinking is that if you have to ASK if it is permitted, it PROBABLY is NOT. You can always PM or email any moderator to ask if your proposed sig is allowed. We will let you know if it is allowed or not. We may suggest changes. If you disagree with what we have to say, we will be happy to discuss it with you.
Remember, there are teens, even kids, who are on this forum. There are also people at work. We need to keep their interests in mind, and that is our goal with this.
As a courtesy to others, please avoid extra wide signatures. They are annoying to others. When your sig is so wide that it makes other users scroll to read the whole thread it is annoying and time-consuming. A good guide is 550 pixels wide at the widest. Also, please avoid extremely long signatures as well. 325 pixels will be considered the limit of signature height. Extremely wide signatures will be edited; extremely long signatures will be responded to as we see fit. Also, NO LARGE FILE SIZES OR ANIMATED SIGS. These will simply be deleted. Remember: Dead space is a waste. If you have a pic that has a lot of dead space around the subject, CROP IT. If we see dead space, we will edit your sig, even if it is within the size limits above.
Additionally, there will be no "listing" of mods in a vertical fashion. What does that mean? No "bulleting" of mod lists that run down the page. You may list them horizontally, but please don't list every piddly modification that you have.
In ALL instances where I personally see a violation, I will try to post, email, or PM a message to the violator asking that the content or format be changed within 24 hours. If this does not happen, I will edit your signature myself. Org rules allow me to do so. If you continue to post "illegal" sig pics, you will be banned for a length of time that I deem to be appropriate!
With all of that said, if anyone sees a violation, please feel free to email or PM Kirk or me with a link to the violator and/or their post. We will not report who told us about the violation.
You can email us through the org or at patrickhenry @ gmail.com (Patrick) or bags142 @ yahoo.com (Kirk). Additionally, ANY moderator or administrator has the power to change a signature.
Having pictures in our signatures is a privilege and not a right. Because of this, certain guidelines must be followed to ensure that all org members can have an enjoyable browsing experience. Signatures in violation are subject to measures by the moderating staff, including removal of signature and/or punitive measures against the member - depeding on how egregious the violation is.
Here is the relevant information:
"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Maxima.org Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."
Basically, this says no sexually-oriented content anywhere, including signatures. What is sexually-oriented content? Well, we have had numerous discussions on the org, and while many people have differing opinions, it is the OUR interpretation that counts. To make viewing easier (and safer) for children and people at work, it has been determined that any image that is even REMOTELY offensive is not allowed. This includes women in bathing suits laying on cars, models in skimpy or revealing clothes, images of breasts or butts, and basically all imagery related to anything other than Maximas (or other vehicles). As you may have noticed, this does NOT allow for off-topic signature pics such as sports teams or vendor websites. We will evaluate each of these on a case-by-case basis, but we have a tendency to ALLOW most signatures of this nature. In the end, what we say goes.
We DO understand that this standard is VERY subjective and that it may be hard to understand at first. The general thinking is that if you have to ASK if it is permitted, it PROBABLY is NOT. You can always PM or email any moderator to ask if your proposed sig is allowed. We will let you know if it is allowed or not. We may suggest changes. If you disagree with what we have to say, we will be happy to discuss it with you.
Remember, there are teens, even kids, who are on this forum. There are also people at work. We need to keep their interests in mind, and that is our goal with this.
As a courtesy to others, please avoid extra wide signatures. They are annoying to others. When your sig is so wide that it makes other users scroll to read the whole thread it is annoying and time-consuming. A good guide is 550 pixels wide at the widest. Also, please avoid extremely long signatures as well. 325 pixels will be considered the limit of signature height. Extremely wide signatures will be edited; extremely long signatures will be responded to as we see fit. Also, NO LARGE FILE SIZES OR ANIMATED SIGS. These will simply be deleted. Remember: Dead space is a waste. If you have a pic that has a lot of dead space around the subject, CROP IT. If we see dead space, we will edit your sig, even if it is within the size limits above.
Additionally, there will be no "listing" of mods in a vertical fashion. What does that mean? No "bulleting" of mod lists that run down the page. You may list them horizontally, but please don't list every piddly modification that you have.
In ALL instances where I personally see a violation, I will try to post, email, or PM a message to the violator asking that the content or format be changed within 24 hours. If this does not happen, I will edit your signature myself. Org rules allow me to do so. If you continue to post "illegal" sig pics, you will be banned for a length of time that I deem to be appropriate!
With all of that said, if anyone sees a violation, please feel free to email or PM Kirk or me with a link to the violator and/or their post. We will not report who told us about the violation.
You can email us through the org or at patrickhenry @ gmail.com (Patrick) or bags142 @ yahoo.com (Kirk). Additionally, ANY moderator or administrator has the power to change a signature.
Last edited by SEmy2K2go; 04-28-2009 at 10:56 PM. Reason: bolded, yellowed, and underlined sig size guidelines.
07-29-2004, 08:25 AM
#2
Admin's GF
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 26
sounds like good, comprehensive, english to me. who doh like it, click and delete.
More seriously, i believe we are dealing with grown folks here...all for the glory of the max. Let's keep a good thing going.
More seriously, i believe we are dealing with grown folks here...all for the glory of the max. Let's keep a good thing going.
07-29-2004, 11:47 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 65
I think there should be a guideline for size limits, because just resizing a hi-res pic doesn't make it very easy for those with slow connections(I am occasionally forced to use dial-up.. arghh)
07-29-2004, 04:48 PM
#7
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by Pteryx
I think there should be a guideline for size limits, because just resizing a hi-res pic doesn't make it very easy for those with slow connections(I am occasionally forced to use dial-up.. arghh)
I don't mean to be rude, but it happens ALL of the time...
07-29-2004, 11:16 PM
#9
Pusssseeeehhhh
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,001
I was once guilty of an overly wide signature. 
07-30-2004, 08:43 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,861
I'm just checking how big my sig is, don't want to tick anyone off. If it's too big let me know. I do like your suggestion of not listing every tiny little mod someone did like changed out light blubs and got a car wash...
07-30-2004, 08:57 AM
#11
Originally Posted by phenryiv1
As a courtesy to others, please avoid extra wide signatures. They are annoying and disrespectful to others. When your sig is so wide that it makes other users scroll to read the whole thread it is annoying and time-consuming. A good guide is 550 pixels wide at the widest. Also, please avoid extremely long signatures as well. 325 pixels will be considered the limit of signature height. Extremely wide signatures will be edited; extremely long signatures will be responded to as we see fit. Remember: Dead space is a waste. If you have a pic that has a lot of dead space around the subject, CROP IT. If I see dead space, I will edit your sig, even if it is within the size limits above.
07-30-2004, 09:02 AM
#12
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by UGAd13
I'm just checking how big my sig is, don't want to tick anyone off. If it's too big let me know. I do like your suggestion of not listing every tiny little mod someone did like changed out light blubs and got a car wash...
07-30-2004, 09:44 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 65
There is a difference between image size and display size. I didn't realize that the .org used the [IMG] tag instead of standard html. For example using a <img src = blah width = 250 height = 250 will NOT reduce the size of the image, but simply change it's display size. A nice write-up about this principle is available here http://graphicssoft.about.com/librar...resizehtml.htm:
My complaint was unfounded, I just neglected to realize how much modems really do suck :-) Sorry for the confusion about my suggestion.
My complaint was unfounded, I just neglected to realize how much modems really do suck :-) Sorry for the confusion about my suggestion.
07-30-2004, 10:22 AM
#15
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 82
Pteryx, I knew exactly what you meant by your suggestion, and I still don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.
When phenryiv1 specifically mentioned the 325x550 pixel limit, he mentioned that the purpose was to prevent the forum software from making the whole topic extra wide to accomodate peoplpe's sigs, which I agree is a VERY annoying problem.
However, Pteryx was talking about putting in a disk size limit to help those of us who occasionally have to connect using a dial-up modem. The larger the disk size of the sig pics, the longer it will talk to load up the pages. I can take one of my high-res photos and resize it to the 325x550 size, but have a big difference in file size depending on the resolution I choose. For instance, I can resize one with a high-res fine option and it will be 99K. I can take the same pic and resize it to the exact same dimensions but use a basic resolution and the file size is only 26K! That's a 75% reduction in size and there will be a noticeable difference in the time it takes a page of 100K pics to load and a page full of 25K pics.
So, I think all of you who were jumping on Pteryx, just because it was YOU who didn't understand what his comment was owe him an apology, since it was a valid point that he brought up.
When phenryiv1 specifically mentioned the 325x550 pixel limit, he mentioned that the purpose was to prevent the forum software from making the whole topic extra wide to accomodate peoplpe's sigs, which I agree is a VERY annoying problem.
However, Pteryx was talking about putting in a disk size limit to help those of us who occasionally have to connect using a dial-up modem. The larger the disk size of the sig pics, the longer it will talk to load up the pages. I can take one of my high-res photos and resize it to the 325x550 size, but have a big difference in file size depending on the resolution I choose. For instance, I can resize one with a high-res fine option and it will be 99K. I can take the same pic and resize it to the exact same dimensions but use a basic resolution and the file size is only 26K! That's a 75% reduction in size and there will be a noticeable difference in the time it takes a page of 100K pics to load and a page full of 25K pics.
So, I think all of you who were jumping on Pteryx, just because it was YOU who didn't understand what his comment was owe him an apology, since it was a valid point that he brought up.
07-30-2004, 10:28 AM
#16
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 82
Originally Posted by phenryiv1
You are at 540 x 360. If you crop out the background above and below the stadium you will be fine.
Or you could just change the description below the pic to "10th hardest place to play, unless you're the Gators" , if they were to ever start a home and home series instead of meeting in Jacksonville.
J/K UGAd13! I'm just used to teasing our clients up in Atlanta about their Dawgs.
07-30-2004, 12:27 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 65
Case in point
Jessa's sig = 506 X 148 and 51 kb
Midknight MAXX's sig = 575 X 128 and 12 kb
Jessa's sig is ~ 1% larger than Midknight Maxx's sig as far as dimensions go. However, Jessa's sig is 4 times the file size.
Jessa's sig = 506 X 148 and 51 kb
Midknight MAXX's sig = 575 X 128 and 12 kb
Jessa's sig is ~ 1% larger than Midknight Maxx's sig as far as dimensions go. However, Jessa's sig is 4 times the file size.
08-02-2004, 07:32 AM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,861
Originally Posted by sheidt
J/K UGAd13! I'm just used to teasing our clients up in Atlanta about their Dawgs.
04-28-2005, 06:50 AM
#20
Originally Posted by phenryiv1
With the new administration in place and a new version of the forum software, we have retained the option of having pictures in our signatures. As this is a privilege and not a right, certain guidelines must be followed to ensure that all org members can have an enjoyable browsing experience. When signature pics first reappeared, Y2KevSE appointed bags533 and me as the designated sig monitors. Now, under the SprintMax administration, we have been kept on as carryovers. There ARE some changes, however, and now is a good time to review our current signature guidelines. Whereas before we were not moderators, Doug has given us more authority. If there are repeated offenses involving signatures, offenders will receive a leave of absence from the org.
Our primary task, however, is to keep sigs within the parameters set up in accordance with the terms of service that all members agreed to when they signed up as org members.
Here is the relevant language in case you signed up long ago:
"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Maxima.org Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."
Basically, this says no sexually-oriented content anywhere, including signatures. What is sexually-oriented content? Well, we have had numerous discussions on the org over the last year, and while many people have differing opinions, it is the ORG's interpretation that counts. To make viewing easier (and safer) for children and people at work, it has been determined that any image that is even REMOTELY offensive is not allowed. This includes women in bathing suits laying on cars, models in skimpy or revealing clothes, images of breasts or butts, and basically all imagery related to anything other than Maximas (or other vehicles). As you may have noticed, this does NOT allow for off-topic signature pics such as sports teams or vendor websites. I will evaluate each of these on a case-by-case basis, but I have a tendency to ALLOW most signatures of this nature. In the end, what we say goes.
We DO understand that this standard is VERY subjective and that it may be hard to understand at first. The general thinking is that if you have to ASK if it is permitted, it PROBABLY is NOT. You can always PM or email bags or me to ask if your proposed sig is allowed. We will let you know if it is allowed or not. We may suggest changes. If you disagree with what we have to say, we will be happy to discuss it with you, but the rule is as follows:
SprintMax is the final say in what is allowed and what is not, and he has asked us to continue acting as the eyes of the administration. Unless you can accept that rule, don't post sig pics. Personally, I have no problem with some images that have been posted in the past, but I agreed to abide by the user agreement, and now I have agreed to help uphold it. It is not MY standard, or Kirk's, that applies here. It is the standard that Kevin developed over a period of time, and that Doug has decided remains as appropriate. Remember, there are teens, even kids, who are on this forum. There are also people at work. We need to keep their interests in mind, and that is our goal with this.
As a courtesy to others, please avoid extra wide signatures. They are annoying and disrespectful to others. When your sig is so wide that it makes other users scroll to read the whole thread it is annoying and time-consuming. A good guide is 550 pixels wide at the widest. Also, please avoid extremely long signatures as well. 325 pixels will be considered the limit of signature height. Extremely wide signatures will be edited; extremely long signatures will be responded to as we see fit. Remember: Dead space is a waste. If you have a pic that has a lot of dead space around the subject, CROP IT. If I see dead space, I will edit your sig, even if it is within the size limits above.
Additionally, there will be no "listing" of mods in a vertical fashion. What does that mean? No "bulleting" of mod lists that run down the page. You may list them horizontally, but please don't list every piddly modification that you have.
In ALL instances where I personally see a violation, I will post, email, or PM a message to the violator asking that the content or format be changed within 24 hours. If this does not happen, I will edit your signature myself. Org rules allow me to do so.
With all of that said, if anyone sees a violation, please feel free to email or PM Kirk or me with a link to the violator and/or their post. We will not report who told us about the violation.
You can email us through the org or at phenryiv1@cs.com (Patrick) or bags142@yahoo.com (Kirk).
Personally, I am excited by the renewed privilege of sig pics. I hope that we can keep them. I am here to do my best to ensure that this is the case, and I hope that you can respect my efforts.
Our primary task, however, is to keep sigs within the parameters set up in accordance with the terms of service that all members agreed to when they signed up as org members.
Here is the relevant language in case you signed up long ago:
"By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of Maxima.org Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."
Basically, this says no sexually-oriented content anywhere, including signatures. What is sexually-oriented content? Well, we have had numerous discussions on the org over the last year, and while many people have differing opinions, it is the ORG's interpretation that counts. To make viewing easier (and safer) for children and people at work, it has been determined that any image that is even REMOTELY offensive is not allowed. This includes women in bathing suits laying on cars, models in skimpy or revealing clothes, images of breasts or butts, and basically all imagery related to anything other than Maximas (or other vehicles). As you may have noticed, this does NOT allow for off-topic signature pics such as sports teams or vendor websites. I will evaluate each of these on a case-by-case basis, but I have a tendency to ALLOW most signatures of this nature. In the end, what we say goes.
We DO understand that this standard is VERY subjective and that it may be hard to understand at first. The general thinking is that if you have to ASK if it is permitted, it PROBABLY is NOT. You can always PM or email bags or me to ask if your proposed sig is allowed. We will let you know if it is allowed or not. We may suggest changes. If you disagree with what we have to say, we will be happy to discuss it with you, but the rule is as follows:
SprintMax is the final say in what is allowed and what is not, and he has asked us to continue acting as the eyes of the administration. Unless you can accept that rule, don't post sig pics. Personally, I have no problem with some images that have been posted in the past, but I agreed to abide by the user agreement, and now I have agreed to help uphold it. It is not MY standard, or Kirk's, that applies here. It is the standard that Kevin developed over a period of time, and that Doug has decided remains as appropriate. Remember, there are teens, even kids, who are on this forum. There are also people at work. We need to keep their interests in mind, and that is our goal with this.
As a courtesy to others, please avoid extra wide signatures. They are annoying and disrespectful to others. When your sig is so wide that it makes other users scroll to read the whole thread it is annoying and time-consuming. A good guide is 550 pixels wide at the widest. Also, please avoid extremely long signatures as well. 325 pixels will be considered the limit of signature height. Extremely wide signatures will be edited; extremely long signatures will be responded to as we see fit. Remember: Dead space is a waste. If you have a pic that has a lot of dead space around the subject, CROP IT. If I see dead space, I will edit your sig, even if it is within the size limits above.
Additionally, there will be no "listing" of mods in a vertical fashion. What does that mean? No "bulleting" of mod lists that run down the page. You may list them horizontally, but please don't list every piddly modification that you have.
In ALL instances where I personally see a violation, I will post, email, or PM a message to the violator asking that the content or format be changed within 24 hours. If this does not happen, I will edit your signature myself. Org rules allow me to do so.
With all of that said, if anyone sees a violation, please feel free to email or PM Kirk or me with a link to the violator and/or their post. We will not report who told us about the violation.
You can email us through the org or at phenryiv1@cs.com (Patrick) or bags142@yahoo.com (Kirk).
Personally, I am excited by the renewed privilege of sig pics. I hope that we can keep them. I am here to do my best to ensure that this is the case, and I hope that you can respect my efforts.
04-28-2005, 04:05 PM
#23
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
How about posting this in a WHITE FONT instead of the unreadable red!
In over 2 years, you are the FIRST person to complain about the font color.
04-28-2005, 04:06 PM
#24
Originally Posted by phenryiv1
My background is white.
In over 2 years, you are the FIRST person to complain about the font color.
In over 2 years, you are the FIRST person to complain about the font color.
04-28-2005, 07:01 PM
#27
The default background color for this website is #313039, or dark grey. It is definitely not white (hex code #FFFFFF).
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
04-28-2005, 08:28 PM
#28
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
The default background color for this website is #313039, or dark grey. It is definitely not white (hex code #FFFFFF).
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
05-13-2005, 04:05 PM
#29
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
The default background color for this website is #313039, or dark grey. It is definitely not white (hex code #FFFFFF).
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
I may be a newbie here, but I am not new to proper web design.The issue here is not why I am the first to complain in 2 years, but why the author of the original post here chose to use a font color incompatible with the background.
Also, a user should not have to highlight an important sticky with his or her mouse just to be able to read it!
BTW, were you able to read my previous post? If not, try higjhlighting it and holding it up to a mirror! :-)
This post predates the option to change viewing styles, so it stays as it is- first come, first served.
05-18-2005, 08:42 PM
#31
Originally Posted by phenryiv1
I wrote it LONG ago, in the default vbulletin3 style. It is not my fault if your style setting is not in accordance with viewing my post.
This post predates the option to change viewing styles, so it stays as it is- first come, first served.
This post predates the option to change viewing styles, so it stays as it is- first come, first served.
Not everything in this world is black and white, especially if the moderator has anything to do with it.
05-18-2005, 08:48 PM
#32
Originally Posted by Igor911
you're def. new to "proper web design". If you knew a thing about it then you would know websites can have many different style sheets. This site, which obviously you have not spent that much time on looking over gives you an option to change the style. Depending on which style you choose, colors will differ.
Your answer is as lame as they come.
05-19-2005, 02:43 AM
#33
Mod her. Ate her.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Martinsburg, WV
Posts: 9,827
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
The moral of the story is:
Not everything in this world is black and white, especially if the moderator has anything to do with it.
Not everything in this world is black and white, especially if the moderator has anything to do with it.
REAL moral of the story- I wrote it when I was just the signature moderator. I am now a full-fledged moderator. I have the say on sigs, and users have the responsibility to comply. If they don't they can get a free vacation. If they don't read it or don't like it, it is non-negotiable.
05-31-2005, 06:09 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 367
Originally Posted by dr-rjp
The moral of the story is:
Not everything in this world is black and white, especially if the moderator has anything to do with it.
Not everything in this world is black and white, especially if the moderator has anything to do with it.
you guys crack me up !!
amazing how we moved from discussing the size of the sig to discussing web design and styles on the page...still amussing and entertaining to browse around !! love this site...
