PROTECT YOUR DNA WITH QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY
Orgo-Life the new way to the future Advertising by Adpathway
I find signature lines to be a bit of a distraction, and most posters don't use them. So, shall we get rid of them?
I find signature lines to be a bit of a distraction, and most posters don't use them. So, shall we get rid of them?
Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.
Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.
This only works for logged users.
Everyone already has this choice as part of their settings, so I don't think there's a huge need to have it enforced as policy. As a disabler, my "no" vote definitely wasn't pro-sigs, merely pro-choice.
Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.
Forcefully shielding readers from the "forced benefit" of repeatedly reading some bit of pomposity would be a kindness.
Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category? 
Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?
Aaawww. I like my skeptic-roasting propaganda! But alright…
This only works for logged users.
Signatures are also hidden to save screen space when using a mobile web browser
I have no strong opinion -- I sort of like the insight into who the person is and how their mind works. But that may not be deemed desirable given the purpose of the site.
Do as thou wilt.
That sounds like it might be the whole of the law, or something! Like you might be a star! 
Witch! Press JMart with stones!
This only works for logged users.
That seems to show consideration to non-members, but effectively turns the poll into "should we impose our preferences on non-members?":
Status quo: they have option to sign up, sign in, and have their personal preferences used.
Turn them off: they don't have such a choice.
Then that would be a different poll against pompous signatures. I hope mine does not fall into that category?
How the heck would I know!?!?!?
That seems to show consideration to non-members, but effectively turns the poll into "should we impose our preferences on non-members?":
Status quo: they have option to sign up, sign in, and have their personal preferences used.
Turn them off: they don't have such a choice.
Good arguments, but you'd have to know you can hide the signatures once you sign up. And signing up to every site you read is tiresome.
I don't think either choice is really better than the other, it's ultimately a design decision and Mick should decide based on what he thinks is better for the site.
Occasionally one catches my eye, but mostly I'm not aware of them being there. Never thought of having one myself, but I can understand why others might.
I didn't know there was an option to turn display of them off, which I've now enabled, just to try it out. That being the case, if someone's distracted by them, then they already have the option to not see them (although many might not be aware of that, as in my case).
If Mick's concerned about a cluttered appearance for new, un-logged users, maybe changing the default setting for sigs, to not showing them, might be a better solution, instead of removing the feature completely.
Signatures are an expression of a member's personality.
We know little enough of each other as it is. I cherish these reminders that there are actual people taking part in these conversations.
Signatures are an expression of a member's personality.
We know little enough of each other as it is. I cherish these reminders that there are actual people taking part in these conversations.
I'd forgotten I'd even set a sig, so its messaging has probably been very stale for quite a long time. However, there are avatars for that purpose, and a picture is worth a thousand words.
@RTM's signature always makes me smile. Well, provides a tiny lift.
"there shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, errrm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are"
To me, it gently reflects some of the more millenarian beliefs/ claims of some UFO groups (Millenarianism, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism). We are on the verge of something transformative that will validate believers. And have been, for ages.
No idea if that was his intention! I'm guessing he's a Life of Brian fan 
@RTM's signature always makes me smile. Well, provides a tiny lift.
"there shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, errrm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are"
To me, it gently reflects some of the more millenarian beliefs/ claims of some UFO groups (Millenarianism, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism). We are on the verge of something transformative that will validate believers. And have been, for ages.
No idea if that was his intention! I'm guessing he's a Life of Brian fan
Me too. I don't care either way, on whether we have signatures or not...so long as they're limited to Monty Python films...
Having read the responses, I'm now definitely in the "keep" category.
@RTM's signature always makes me smile. Well, provides a tiny lift.
"there shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, errrm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are"
To me, it gently reflects some of the more millenarian beliefs/ claims of some UFO groups (Millenarianism, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism). We are on the verge of something transformative that will validate believers. And have been, for ages.
No idea if that was his intention! I'm guessing he's a Life of Brian fan
Yeah, from the below scene in The Life of Brian. I first saw the film I was a teenager, and having grown up in Ireland the film was notorious as it was kind of banned. Good old Channel 4 (the downfall of many a young teen male) showed it and when I saw it my first reaction was "is that it". Of course there was a lot more to the film than bashing religion. The full scene reminds me a bit of what we get these days (failed prophets of the past aside) of people saying so much while saying so little.
Signatures are an expression of a member's personality.
We know little enough of each other as it is. I cherish these reminders that there are actual people taking part in these conversations.
Why? All of your about pages are empty. And many don't use your real names.
Why? All of your about pages are empty. And many don't use your real names.
Ann uses her name, mostly. Are you worried about your employers or something?
Ann uses her name, mostly. Are you worried about your employers or something?
I'm just old and I'm talking eight character limit on user names old.
I've used some variation of this avatar and user ID for over
35 years and frequently post links between sites I use during similar conversations. Having a somewhat consistent name/avatar combo across sites helps with the flow of communications and continuity.
Last edited: Today at 10:05 AM
I don't want to be disruptive. I know that's what I do! If you all want to operate the way you do, it's still perfectly fine. It is certainly a fun challenge, I assume to try and succeed much of the time in debunking what you look at. And SITREC is indeed a great achievement. I will check in periodically to see how things are going.
I think we'll keep sigs. People can individually disable them if they like.
I think we'll keep sigs. People can individually disable them if they like.
Thank you for the inspiration.
Yeah, from the below scene in The Life of Brian. I first saw the film I was a teenager, and having grown up in Ireland the film was notorious as it was kind of banned. Good old Channel 4 (the downfall of many a young teen male) showed it and when I saw it my first reaction was "is that it". Of course there was a lot more to the film than bashing religion. The full scene reminds me a bit of what we get these days (failed prophets of the past aside) of people saying so much while saying so little.
Malcolm Muggeridge and the bishop of somewhere-or-other held a serious debate with Palin and Cleese on whether or not that film was blasphemous. (Well, not so much a debate as an attack.) There was a hilarious brief satire of that at a later date, with Rowen Atkinson playing the part of the Bishop.
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt9U&source_ve_path=MjE0Mjgz&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2F
![Spielberg’s “Disclosure Day” discussion [WITH SPOILERS]](https://www.metabunk.org/files/Metabunk-logo.png){kind=logo}
.png)
.jpg)
English (US) · 
French (CA) ·