dktc' new siggy

[nwadeltaboy]

[dktc]

I don't really care
Is the new one more evil than the old one? Of course :twisted:

[nwadeltaboy]

Evil...yes...just like you, Daniel. :twisted:

JK.

[dktc]

Evil...yes...just like you, Daniel. :twisted:

Now... let's see....

Do you want discipline or regret/disappointment? :twisted:

[nwadeltaboy]

I would prefer to have neither :twisted:

[dktc]

I would prefer to have neither :twisted:

That is not an option :twisted:

[nwadeltaboy]

ohh sh-asterisk-t :shock:

[Scandalian Airlines]

Both your logos are bad when it comes to reading, nwa your letters are compressed to the verge of destruction.
Mine is clear as glass though

[dktc]

I believe that sigs should convey personality and as long as the owner likes it, it doesn't matter.

My sigs are cramped, which is typical me, who loves multi-tasking with lots of things going on at the same time. My sigs maybe hard to read, but if you could read them, you would have something to think about.

Nwaboy's... not really related to AM  (which shows faulty thoughts   ).

As for Scandalian, yours show that you value relationships. Your own portion is small relative to USG and Skylite's, which kind of reflects that you value the connection with them. But on the other hand, I always got the impression that I am looking at Skylite's sig instead :wink:


Basically all sigs have pros and cons, but to me, it is the implication of the owner that matters. That is also the reason that I insist on making my own sig and not using the ones others sent me.

[iranair777]

Of everyones sigs on these forums, I have to surely be at the top somewhere

except for the fact that its Iranair747 instead of Iranair777 I bet you no one noticed!

[MrOrange]

How psychological  :wink:

Some sigs just have no implication ↓

(although I'm sure you can say something about it)

[dktc]

How psychological  :wink:

Some sigs just have no implication ↓

(although I'm sure you can say something about it)

Most sigs have implication, because the likings of the creators is a subconsious level that reflects part of his/her personality. As for yours.... you are obsessed with making sigs  

[MrOrange]

That's in no way an internal-implicit meaning within the signature, as you know :wink:

Back to your sig, it tells me you like both black and smileys with red horns on their heads. Add up and you get, well, the way people tend to look at your moderating style

[dktc]

Back to your sig, it tells me you like both black and smileys with red horns on their heads. Add up and you get, well, the way people tend to look at your moderating style

hmm... you might way to reconsider the causation effect, if any.

It could be my sig causing my mod style, or my mod style causing my sig, or something causing both my style and my sig, or one of those causing something else that cause another one of those.....

[MrOrange]

That's what us media-theorists like to call over-theoreticizing, or that what happens if you desperately try to apply non-suitable theories to a case, or mis-analyse media texts by reading internal-implicit meanings where none exist. Although this causation effect, which I haven't really studied so I can't say much about it, probably exists, over-estimating the power of a signature, which is what you're doing here IMO, is not really the way to go

Besides, my post only stated that people can easily make up your moderating style by looking at the red-on-black in your signature, which can be seen as an index/symbol for, at wish, hell or bad things in general, and the smiley, which is a clear case of a symbol referring to the aforementioned. In no way I said your signature causes anything, or anything leads to your signature.