|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 12:46 pm
I've noticed a few signatures floatign around the RP forums now (I was hoping it would never make it there...-_-) with some rather lude messages, acommodied by the lightle signature "Choicers against bullshit."
Well, I have to say, some of the choicer signatures I see I can actualy smile and nod at, such as waters. She has some very beautiful little cycling signatures. I disagree with the messages of a few, but I can i say don't have to gringe like I normaly do because they arn't insultign in the slgihtest. It supports her side with out resorting to smearign the other. uite a few choicers have these signatures, but few of them are liek waters in that they keep form smearign the other side in their posts and will actualy look down at those who do.
But, these signatures are nothign short of what they clame to be against: Bullshit. A perfect example is one that Mcphee-phee wrote an article agianst in our blog. The title reads "Pro-life Homosexuals. Taking away a woman's right so we can get ours." My reaction every time i see it is always WHAT THE ********!? There are a few others that are really nothing more then cut and paste edits of pro-life signatures that really do nothign for choicers other then make them look like snide bigots supporting absolute bullshit. Its one of the few things that make me see thier guild as nothign more then a "come one come all! Smear the lifers"
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 2:50 pm
Yeah, I really don't get the point of smearing, angry signatures. All it seems to serve is to get people upset, often over stupid issues.
Though really, I usually just tend to Adblock any signatures that offend me and get on with my life. I have also Adblocked the DramaLlama and a few other annoying Emoticons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 4:13 pm
Adblock? Whasat, a gaia feature?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:32 pm
Tiger of the Fire Adblock? Whasat, a gaia feature? No, it's a plugin for FireFox, an open source (free) web browser. I love it, and really abuse Adblock. Adblock is made to block advertisements, I believe it was made specifically to get rid of the bouncing/blinking ads. But you can have it hide any image on the internet. I have tons of people on Gaia who I just don't see their signatures because they bother me. I have real issues on occasion dealing with anger, and I tend to want to get rid of anything that bothers me greatly. Adblock is really good for that, for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:33 pm
I don't trust firefox since it's hurt three of my computers now sweatdrop so i guess i oculdn't use that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 5:37 pm
Tiger of the Fire I don't trust firefox since it's hurt three of my computers now sweatdrop so i guess i oculdn't use that. What OS do you use? I use Windows XP and Linux and I've never had a problem with FireFox.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:06 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:46 pm
WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire Adblock? Whasat, a gaia feature? No, it's a plugin for FireFox, an open source (free) web browser. I love it, and really abuse Adblock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:41 pm
Akshamala WatersMoon110 Tiger of the Fire Adblock? Whasat, a gaia feature? No, it's a plugin for FireFox, an open source (free) web browser. I love it, and really abuse Adblock. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ It isn't perfect but IE does pick up what ever slack slips by so its all good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:06 am
Huh. Perhaps you use some software that conflicts with FireFox then. *shrug*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:19 pm
Yeah, I hate signatures like that. It's like, I don't care if they don't agree with any of my viewpoints, but they don't have to go out of their way to dismiss my views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 5:58 am
A.Dream.Within.A.Dream. Yeah, I hate signatures like that. It's like, I don't care if they don't agree with any of my viewpoints, but they don't have to go out of their way to dismiss my views. As far as I can tell, there are a lot of signatures that exist only to insult people who hold a certain view (and I guess make the people who hold opposite views look "better"). I saw one the other day that insulted Fantasy Fiction, saying that Science Fiction is better. I thought it was silly, because both types of fiction have good stories and bad stories within them (and personally, I'd rather read a not very good Fantasy story that a not very good SciFi story, but that is just a personal preference). You don't need insults to win people over to "your side", and they are just as likely to convince people you are wrong as they are to convince people you are right. But simple statements allow people to keep their own opinions without upsetting anyone (hopefully *wink*). With an issue like abortion, there really aren't too many "fence riders" most people have already reached some conclusion, and sligging mud (I hope it's mud *eww*) really doesn't do much to win people for a certain side. I'm trying to think up something catchy as a "counter sig". I know I want to end it with a little "- Intelligent People Against Insults" but I don't know what to put in the body of the signature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 4:41 pm
ITher are those who make them to be blatantly insulting. Others like my self will normaly make them to vent, and tehn delet them later, never intending to carrey them.
This whole issure reminds me of when Veled tried to make the claim of copyright infrengment, saying we stolle her banner idea rolleyes Miranda made a quick responce before Veled was locke dout of the guild (I think she was locke dout any way) Basicly told her to deal with her own problems of copywright infrengment before macking claims of ours. Beware linked her to the page were all those images were. I can say with a fair amount of surety that the artist who made those cartoons were not contacted before they were defaced
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 1:15 am
I'm all for spreading the message, but I think that signatures like that reflect badly on both sides. There's a particular one here that really gets to me, actually. It's take the "Anti-choice? Then you won't mind if I have you forcibly sterilised." And changed it to "Anti-life? Then you won't mind if I have you killed."
And honestly, pro-choice is not anti-life, whereas pro-life can at least conceivably be anti-choice, because it's trying to limit choice. I don't agree with pro-lifers being called anti-choice, and I don't do it, but it's at least conceivable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:52 am
Rinaqa I'm all for spreading the message, but I think that signatures like that reflect badly on both sides. There's a particular one here that really gets to me, actually. It's take the "Anti-choice? Then you won't mind if I have you forcibly sterilised." And changed it to "Anti-life? Then you won't mind if I have you killed." And honestly, pro-choice is not anti-life, whereas pro-life can at least conceivably be anti-choice, because it's trying to limit choice. I don't agree with pro-lifers being called anti-choice, and I don't do it, but it's at least conceivable. Thats meant to offend the offenders and twist the logic they are using against them. It's not targeted at all choicers. If you arnt the kind who think pro-life is anti-choice, then you arnt being disparaged. ANd quite honostly, the logic wroks. Pro-choice is anti-life just as much as pro-life is anti-choice. They call us anti-choice because we are against abortion ever being a choice. To call us anti choice however would be that we hold people down and make all the choices for them, leaving them with none. If pro-life is concievably asnti-choice then you must submit that pro-choice is conceivably anti-life. Any one who supports abortion in the slightest supports the killing of unborn children. You are for the woman's choice and aginasdt the life of the child. You could be for the woman's cvhoice but not condone that the child must die (We arnt for forcing woman to stay pregnant any more then you are, but we feel that that life matter more then her comfertability. IN other words, just like you may not condone that abortion ends the life of a child, but acceept it since you feel her "right to bodily integrity" trumps that life, we don't condone woman being forced to stay pregnant but in most casses would accept it since we feel that life trumps her choice and she gave up her right the moment she submitted to having sex), it still dosn't change the fact that you support the method that ends that life. You are, there fore, concievably anti-life. If you are going to, in any way, imply that we are anti-choice, even concievably, then by that same logic you must submit that pro-choice is conceivably anti life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
