Images in Signature

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Grey Fox
    Member
    • Jan 2003
    • 474

    Images in Signature

    Has it been changed so images aren't allowed in a signature anymore?I tried BB code and HTML,but each time it removes the [img] or <img part and it turns into a link.Am I just doing something wrong?
  • modetwo
    Webmaster
    • Jan 2003
    • 5059

    #2
    Get this:

    Image sigs sucks!
    And it is probably installed a hack to prevent these kind of sigs.

    Comment

    • Lurox
      Member
      • Jan 2003
      • 2230

      #3
      Originally posted by mOdEtWo
      Get this:

      Image sigs sucks!
      One second time?

      IMAGES IN SIGNATURE IS SUCKS
      JM

      Comment

      • Omega
        Member
        • Jan 2003
        • 2813

        #4
        Originally posted by Lurox
        Originally posted by mOdEtWo
        Get this:

        Image sigs sucks!
        One second time?

        IMAGES IN SIGNATURE IS SUCKS
        I'll go along with that.

        Image signatures suck.

        Comment

        • Machine
          Member
          • Jan 2003
          • 5829

          #5
          Originally posted by Ø·mega
          Originally posted by Lurox
          Originally posted by mOdEtWo
          Get this:

          Image sigs sucks!
          One second time?

          IMAGES IN SIGNATURE IS SUCKS
          I'll go along with that.

          Image signatures suck.
          ALL TOGETHER NOW!

          IMAGE SIGNATURES SUCK!

          No really, they do.
          ~TuF~

          Comment

          • BiG_D
            Former Forum Staff
            • Jan 2003
            • 4064

            #6
            It has been brought to my attention that
            IMAGE SIGNATURES SUCK!
            And I'm inclined to agree.
            It's not my fault everything you like is terrible.

            Comment

            • DarkBill
              Member
              • Jan 2003
              • 2808

              #7
              Yeah, image signatures suck. Most of the problem is people who abuse it, and people who have crappy hosting. Huge, ugly images that take an eternity to download truly suck.
              Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

              Comment

              • Tankazz
                Member
                • Jan 2003
                • 154

                #8
                what about small ones? 320x80? =P Ive always liekd them, and im on 56k. All you pussy 56kers cant deal with waiting. GET USED TO IT
                *Leader of the 56k rebellion*
                *Slowing down cable and DSL users, everywhere*

                LikitaRenn:"I wanna be added to as many people's sigs as will add me to... their.. sigs.. um.. something..."

                Comment

                • DarkBill
                  Member
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 2808

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Tankazz
                  what about small ones? 320x80? =P Ive always liekd them, and im on 56k. All you pussy 56kers cant deal with waiting. GET USED TO IT
                  I'm on broadband wherever I am, it's not my connection that's the issue. It's all these taffers hosting their images on servers that have no bandwidth. Clientside pipe doesn't matter if the server doesn't have any appreciable bandwidth.
                  Nearly all men can stand adversity -- if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.

                  Comment

                  • -=V12US=-
                    Member
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 2577

                    #10
                    Images in sigs are fun, here's an example of the maximum size that'd be allowed in your signature pic.



                    At least try it for a few days or something.

                    Comment

                    • BobTheDog
                      Member
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 405

                      #11
                      We already have avatars. We don't all need two avatars. :roll:
                      BobTheDog says, "Now you've gone too far!"

                      Comment

                      • Grey Fox
                        Member
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 474

                        #12
                        It was only 360 x 134 and 8kb,so I didn't think it was so bad.Also,since it was the only thing in my sig it didn't take up that much space.

                        Comment

                        • Grey Fox
                          Member
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 474

                          #13
                          On a similiar note,can someone host a small pic for my avatar?For some reason the forum says it isn't valid,although it fits all the requirements.I would greatly appreciate it.

                          here's the URL:

                          Click Here

                          Comment

                          • Omega
                            Member
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 2813

                            #14
                            Maybe it's because it's not you.

                            Comment

                            • impulse
                              Member
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 651

                              #15
                              sigs rule!

                              They display ones creativity and ingenuity!

                              I feel I was violated when I wasn't allowed to display mine

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X