






<3 southpawminitrue wrote:The content of this message has been determined by Minitrue to be doubleplusungood crimethink and its creator will be terminated. Memories of this message will be corrected by Miniluv to restore goodthink.
How come that LV used that sig after I mentioned it?Tunco123 wrote:Well, they are very good.
I liked one you made to LV.
Duly noted. I was trying to counteract all the fawning adoration Dave was receiving—which, in my opinion, was happening not because the images were good but because of the maker's status. I understand if I went overboard, though.Techno wrote:incluye, verbal warning. No flaming or trying to provoke something.
Ah I see. You were simply trying to correct Tunco.incluye wrote:Duly noted. I was trying to counteract all the fawning adoration Dave was receiving—which, in my opinion, was happening not because the images were good but because of the maker's status. I understand if I went overboard, though.Techno wrote:incluye, verbal warning. No flaming or trying to provoke something.
I know. :/incluye wrote:Duly noted. I was trying to counteract all the fawning adoration Dave was receiving—which, in my opinion, was happening not because the images were good but because of the maker's status. I understand if I went overboard, though.Techno wrote:incluye, verbal warning. No flaming or trying to provoke something.
No, no, you're not nearly as overhyped as, say, Twilight. I acknowledge that your role here is basically to hold up the forums with one hand and strangle fully grown bears with the other.blue_tetris wrote:Anyhow, incluye, I think people genuinely enjoy some of the things that I do without trying to patronize to me. Maybe someday you'll understand that I'm not the overwhelmingly likeable guy with no talent you have me pegged to be..
Radical! Out of sight!blue_tetris wrote:Hideous? I think the word you're looking for is clever. They're not the kind of signatures you kids would enjoy, certainly, but that's because I couldn't fit enough Yugi Ohs and pokey-mans into them.
Indeed. They're also oversharpened, undersharpened, washed-out, oversaturated, or lack a focal point. And I notice that none of them have borders, which bothers me. The thing is, Dave, that they *look* like stocks + text, and none of these images is something I'd use for a signature.blue_tetris wrote:Also, these aren't stock images plus text. They're heavily modified from the original to give a quicky or interesting effect--lighting added, clarity provided to areas that were hard to view, Slappy's image pasted swiftly into non-Slappy environments. Stuff normal people care about. Additionally, the selection process for the images to be used as the basis is quite rigorous and, as such, I pick better images than everyone else would. Funnier images, that. Some of the recent ones are just crops from the original Rugrats pilot, with no alterations, because I found them and wanted to share them with my online friends.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa.incluye wrote:No, no, you're not nearly as overhyped as, say, Twilight.
Thanks.Pheidippides wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa.incluye wrote:No, no, you're not nearly as overhyped as, say, Twilight.
Cool images, b_t. Some are pretty amusing.
You won't. But many, or rather, all but you would like to.incluye wrote:none of these images is something I'd use for a signature.
Signatures supplied by the following: NicNac14, Tsukatu, aphex_n, Nphasis, pinkymyno1, UniverseZero, gloomp, sidke, 29403, AMomentLikeThis, Chase, Red Reamer, Izzy, MyCheezKilledYours, Techno, Donfuy juice, southpaw, IAMAMAZING, SkyRay, Skyline, Why_Me, jackass, Leaff, esay, Daikenkai, Kablamo_Boom, wumbla, Izzy, toasters, Octopod Squad, behappyy, notsteve, Shadowraith, GTM, Animator, kkstrong, TearsOfTheSaints, Spawn of Yanni, nnn, Furry Ant, ampburner, fawk. Thanks.
I have 72 signatures.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests