Since Barman has taken upon himself with his newly found
"moderator" job to censor one of the site's own animated JPG
smiliies in one of my posts, I figure it's important enough for him
to clarify what the site's policy is on using the site's own smilies -
especially since this here is the first time I've seen the site censor
it's own images. Give credit to Barman for being the first in this
here endeavor.
Refer to the following post:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by barman
ZIT, I'll censor them anytime you use them directly at another poster within the PoliticoPub. See the Sticky Post from WILHEIM at top of the menu.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ahhh... interesting. So you "smilie" that says "F*ck you A**hole" can
be used as long as when the "you" doesn't directly apply to anyone
in particular huh? The "you" must be an indirect you instead of
a direct one?
This one here: :fckmad:
Don't worry Barman, the "you" there isn't applying to you in that
instance, it's only there to show which smilie I am referring to.
So, am I correct in understanding the new application of your
moderator job - um, the one that is interested in banning the site's
own animated JPG's?
Though, I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the purpose of
having smilies like this one: :madasshol
It would seem that the whole purpose of said smilies is to direct them
at someone - it seems like this is their historical use on this here forum.
Maybe you need to write up a new smilie usage procedure and publish it
on this here forum, since you've taken it upon yourself with your new
"moderator" job to censor their usage?
If the purpose of these smilies wasn't to direct them at someone, please
enlighten me. Somehow I don't think they were supposed to be used to
call oneself an A**hole? And, if the purpose has changed, I think it's
only fair that the whole forum should be enlightened, correct?
ucking:
<!-- / message -->
"moderator" job to censor one of the site's own animated JPG
smiliies in one of my posts, I figure it's important enough for him
to clarify what the site's policy is on using the site's own smilies -
especially since this here is the first time I've seen the site censor
it's own images. Give credit to Barman for being the first in this
here endeavor.
Refer to the following post:
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by barman
ZIT, I'll censor them anytime you use them directly at another poster within the PoliticoPub. See the Sticky Post from WILHEIM at top of the menu.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ahhh... interesting. So you "smilie" that says "F*ck you A**hole" can
be used as long as when the "you" doesn't directly apply to anyone
in particular huh? The "you" must be an indirect you instead of
a direct one?
This one here: :fckmad:
Don't worry Barman, the "you" there isn't applying to you in that
instance, it's only there to show which smilie I am referring to.
So, am I correct in understanding the new application of your
moderator job - um, the one that is interested in banning the site's
own animated JPG's?
Though, I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the purpose of
having smilies like this one: :madasshol
It would seem that the whole purpose of said smilies is to direct them
at someone - it seems like this is their historical use on this here forum.
Maybe you need to write up a new smilie usage procedure and publish it
on this here forum, since you've taken it upon yourself with your new
"moderator" job to censor their usage?
If the purpose of these smilies wasn't to direct them at someone, please
enlighten me. Somehow I don't think they were supposed to be used to
call oneself an A**hole? And, if the purpose has changed, I think it's
only fair that the whole forum should be enlightened, correct?
ucking:
<!-- / message -->