Jump to content

An open letter to the 68kMLA community...


Recommended Posts

. . . once upon a time when you edited your post, a timestamp (Edited by: username at: such and such time) was inserted into the post makining it blatently obvious that the post had been edited . Somewhere along the line that functionality was dropped....

 

Yet another very good reason for the time limit!

 

Writing is a re-iterative process, best done while in the POST/PREVIEW windows or even offline in a word processor when it comes to any serious attempt at accuracy, clarity . . .

 

. . . brevity . . . (Yeah, riiiiiggghhhhtttttt! You oughta' try that one on for size, jt! :lol: ) [;)]]'>

 

. . . whatever, post carefully, post often, make corrections in a new post and offer some additional tidbit of info while you're at it! This has been proven to promote MORE DISCUSSION of the topic on hand, jog the collective memory of the MLA and/or promote the personal banter in the threads that has ALWAYS been a key BENIFIT of life here in the ranks of the 68kMLA!

 

IMHO, as always. :beige:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

C) once upon a time when you edited your post, a timestamp (Edited by: username at: such and such time) was inserted into the post makining it blatently obvious that the post had been edited . Somewhere along the line that functionality was dropped....

It should still do that, though phpBB has always seemed to be a little inconsistent in whether it does or whether it doesn't...

Link to post
Share on other sites
C) once upon a time when you edited your post, a timestamp (Edited by: username at: such and such time) was inserted into the post makining it blatently obvious that the post had been edited . Somewhere along the line that functionality was dropped....

It should still do that, though phpBB has always seemed to be a little inconsistent in whether it does or whether it doesn't...

 

 

I think it only does it when the post is edited more than an hour since it was made, so as to not clutter up the post because someone just wanted to fix a typo. So, it's never seen anymore now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How come we can't have smilies in signatures, but we can have a picture of an 8 ball?

 

Actually, we can't have the 8. But 80 mini HP or whoever can.

 

I was going to make a really neat signature like this:

 

Now's the time to

:)Adopt a Mac!

That would be awesome. All the 8 Ball image in Jt's sig is a Gif @ here images/smilies/icon_smile_8ball.gif

But I don't know how it got there if no IMG's are allowed in the sigs!

Maybe he activated Images in Sigs for a second so that he could set his and then removed it?

I want an iMage in my signature!

Link to post
Share on other sites
IIRC we used to be able to put smilies in our sigs. Another case of "disable the source of a nonexistent problem," eh? xx(

 

 

I think smilies in signatures are harmless. We're talking about tiny GIF images that are cached in the browser already. They require almost no extra network resources to be used. They take up very little space in the signature. The worst you could do is fill your entire signature with smilies, which might cause your posts to take up a lot of space, but you could do the same thing now using certain Unicode characters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, smilies in signatures went away when we got to use avatars, but I could be wrong. And yes, as I was attempting to reconstruct my traditional sig from waaaayyyyyy back in the 68kMLA day. Without my knowledge, ~tl did, in fact, enable smilies in sigs for a just a bit, told me about it afterward and that if I tried to edit my sig, my beloved [8] would disappear from even my sig. As they say: rank . . . and maybe even old age . . . hath its priveledges!

 

I assume that my [8] was "grandfathered in" so to speak, cus I'm a crusty ole' curmudgeon/cantankerous old coot with a (badly leaking) boatload of knowledge about arcane Apple architectures and peripherals lore . . .

 

. . . and I'm crazy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . it's convenient to have an automagically attached sig, but you also lose a LOT of your ability to express yourself by using one.

 

If you recall, before I resurrected the old sig with the [8] and the AC-130H Gunship linkage, I used to be able to express myself better with the use of variations on my traditiona =8-\ .TXT based "smilie" depending on my mood ATM and I was also able to add on a series of postscripts, sometimes for fun, often to make additional, if sometimes tangential, comments after signing off manually.

 

Now that capability is gone as long as I use my auto-sig . . . bleh! =8-P

 

you win some, you lose some, some get rained out, and then there's the lockout issue. [;)]]'>

Link to post
Share on other sites
The forum software must be pre-parsing signatures. Otherwise, smilies would disappear as soon as they were disabled.

 

Now that you have brought it to my attention with your pithy sig commentary: a note to the wise!

 

You are very lucky that the forum software isn't parsing for signatures containing advertisements for commercial interests, (AKA Spam) try to keep a bit lower profile, comrade!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not get why images in your sigs are such a big deal..

Yea, trash80 has a little one but really, he has been around far longer than most of us. If anything he has earned it by being useful for so many years.

 

Just get over it. No images in sigs and no editing after one hour are the least of you worries. It is a small price to pay, in fact, those features are incredibly useless compared to keeping the community active and mostly on topic and useful.

 

Stop concerning yourselves with minor garbage and focus on the community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The forum software must be pre-parsing signatures. Otherwise, smilies would disappear as soon as they were disabled.

 

Now that you have brought it to my attention with your pithy sig commentary: a note to the wise!

 

You are very lucky that the forum software isn't parsing for signatures containing advertisements for commercial interests, (AKA Spam) try to keep a bit lower profile, comrade!

 

The link to Adopt a Mac in my signature has been tolerated since I first opened the store over a year ago. Although not immediately apparent in the online store (which focuses on newer Macs at this time, but stay tuned for some updates coming soon), Adopt a Mac has saved hundreds of old Macs from being sent to China, where the NuBus cards are burned for gold and the CRTs dumped in a river. Several members here have purchased from the store and this patronage allows me to continue in my endeavors.

 

The link is not spam and I don't appreciate being compared to spammers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The link is not spam and I don't appreciate being compared to spammers.

I agree... commercial or not, Adoptamac is a relevant resource for 68KMLA members. Not all advertising is SPAM (though I'll admit the line is a blurry one).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The forum software must be pre-parsing signatures. Otherwise, smilies would disappear as soon as they were disabled.

 

Now that you have brought it to my attention with your pithy sig commentary: a note to the wise!

 

You are very lucky that the forum software isn't parsing for signatures containing advertisements for commercial interests, (AKA Spam) try to keep a bit lower profile, comrade!

 

The link to Adopt a Mac in my signature has been tolerated since I first opened the store over a year ago.

 

If I were you, I'd rethink that, the link doesn't bother me personally as it now stands. That said, your link has been been a topic of concern in the "war room," ergo, my concern and advice: "try to keep a bit lower profile, comrade!"

 

"Barely tolerated," would more much more accurately reflect the impression I've gotten in my study of the records in the War Room. If you have any question about that, please feel free to PM the other mods and find out for yourself.

 

The link is not spam and I don't appreciate being compared to spammers.

 

If you got that impression from my post, I apologize. Please reread my post carefully and re-consider the meaning of the words I tried to chose carefully.

 

However, I did mean to imply that carping that emticons being prohibited in sigs was cramping your ability to recreate your Store's Logo in your sig might very well be considered pushing just a bit too hard on the envelope. Creating a "Billboard" with your stores logo in your sig would almost certainly cross "the blurry line" between a "low profile" link to a legitimate source of 68kMLA "stuff" as opposed to an, in your face, "Signboard" which I assure you, will be considered inappropriate, if not outright spam by the majority of the mods.

 

I'm only trying to curb your youthful, impetuous nature a bit, just as I did in the "NetBook" thread. Please consider that my post was done out of concern for both yourself and the rest of our Band of Brothers (and sisters) here at the 68kMLA.

 

I also wanted to try to get off the "emoticons in sigs" debate and return to, more serious, on topic discussion.

 

Sincerely,

Link to post
Share on other sites
The link is not spam and I don't appreciate being compared to spammers.

I agree... commercial or not, Adoptamac is a relevant resource for 68KMLA members. Not all advertising is SPAM (though I'll admit the line is a blurry one).

 

I hope you also will take my previous post to heart, notice, I even borrowed your terminology/situation statement. [;)]]'>

 

I'll re-iterate, as it stands now, I do not consider his sig link to be SPAM, but I'm not the only mod.

 

I just happen to be the mod most likely to "let it all hang out" in the forums, being as openly concerned and as honest as I can manage.

 

I've been accused of throwing "molotov cocktails" into this thread at least two times here in the thread and once in a PM. However, in ALL three cases (with the possible exception of this one) the choices of tense and the words that I purposely used, made the gut-reaction, ill considered responses of certain members patently absurd. I CHOSE not to respond to these obvious overreactions because we 're not about publicly humiliating our comrades here at the 68kMLA, at least not back in the day when I was one of the more active members.

 

As a matter of fact, if Mike is H**L BENT on creating ASCII art to create his signboard, I can offer several tips & tricks . . .

. . . however it is my personal opinion that his taking such action will bring about NO GOOD AT ALL!

 

Sincerely,

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I were you, I'd rethink that, the link doesn't bother me personally as it now stands. That said, your link has been been a topic of concern in the "war room," ergo, my concern and advice: "try to keep a bit lower profile, comrade!"

 

"Barely tolerated," would more much more accurately reflect the impression I've gotten in my study of the records in the War Room. If you have any question about that, please feel free to PM the other mods and find out for yourself.

 

I don't know what goes on in the war room. All I can deduce is that the link has been tolerated because I haven't been asked to remove it.

 

However, I did mean to imply that carping that emticons being prohibited in sigs was cramping your ability to recreate your Store's Logo in your sig might very well be considered pushing just a bit too hard on the envelope. Creating a "Billboard" with your stores logo in your sig would almost certainly cross "the blurry line" between a "low profile" link to a legitimate source of 68kMLA "stuff" as opposed to an, in your face, "Signboard" which I assure you, will be considered inappropriate, if not outright spam by the majority of the mods.

 

My current signature as of the time of this post is more in your face than if I had simply done this:

:)Adopt a Mac.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, if you were allowed an unobtrusive link then be grateful you get even that. Many boards will not allow any advertising for external sites at all with no exceptions.

I really think this whole issue is rather lame.

 

Having images in sigs is not required - at all - for the proper function of this board and good health of the community. Both of those are of high importance.

Seriously, it will not harm you to just accept it. You have a text link, we all know who you are and what you do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, if Mike is H**L BENT on creating ASCII art to create his signboard, I can offer several tips & tricks . . .

. . . however it is my personal opinion that his taking such action will bring about NO GOOD AT ALL!

 

dammit

 

Screenshot-4.png

 

zomg. 8-o Use it Mike, use IT!

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, if Mike is H**L BENT on creating ASCII art to create his signboard, I can offer several tips & tricks . . .

. . . however it is my personal opinion that his taking such action will bring about NO GOOD AT ALL!

 

dammit

 

Screenshot-4.png

 

zomg. 8-o Use it Mike, use IT!

 

 

I've seen better ones that do color and stuff.

 

Also you only get 500 characters in a sig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...