Mike's been clamoring for that same feature too, so you're not alone. I've laid out the styles for it already, but we just have so many projects going on that it could still be a little bit before it gets programmed in.

I surf the web on my iPhone. (I guess that means it's flagged now.)

You should give them Serbian names for food.

I'll quote The Dude in The Big Lebowski here when I say...

"What the fuck you talkin' about?"

:P

The whole affair was a lot of fun.

actually it was a crowbar, according to the AP

Doesn't this belong in the Art forum?

At 1/16/08 07:10 PM, Ross wrote: Man, I'm disappointed in you guys. There's no exploit here... look again at gumOnShoe's sig. It turns out he has no sig, but he made an image that cleverly looks like one (including text) and attached it to his post.

Actually Ross, the GumOnShoe fake sig wasn't the one being discussed (until later). It was the user Twilight-Demon that had the tall signature. That was the genuine article. He exploited the bug you fixed early on and just hadn't posted since we fixed it, hence never caught him.

Until now. Dun dun dun!

(But I assure you, it was a large image right up until the point I deleted it...)

At 1/17/08 12:50 PM, LittleJennaSweetie wrote:

At 1/17/08 12:45 PM, Daedalus wrote:

I'm basically Richard Gear in "what women want".

That was Mel Gibson you moron...

Yeah, Richard GERE was in Dr. T and the Women, also released that same year. (Please don't ask me how I know this.)

It was a bug that people exploited right after the redesign launched. It was fixed shortly thereafter and deleted sig images as we came across them. But since this guy hadn't posted until now it went unnoticed.

The next time he goes to upload a new image he'll find he'll be capped to the standard size.

At 1/11/08 03:48 PM, NEVR wrote:

At 1/11/08 03:43 PM, bob wrote: I agree. We should totally take away the images from everyone's signature, and instead allow the user image where you said. It would allow for much more individuality than the signatures do.

Oh bob, you forget that without including the word 'sarcasm' somewhere in your post, these morons will take you seriously.

LOL.

At 1/11/08 06:55 AM, spiritual101 wrote:
Actually, i kinda like the idea. It would be interesting to have alittle profile picture inbetween the words "level" and "sign-up date".
It would help give the user a bit of individuality. But ithink the picture should be pretty small. But not to smal.

I agree. We should totally take away the images from everyone's signature, and instead allow the user image where you said. It would allow for much more individuality than the signatures do.

At 1/11/08 02:52 AM, Little-Rena wrote:

At 1/11/08 02:30 AM, Farmageddon wrote: Nothing to distinguish the number of people who find it useful/useless. One bad review mark is the same as 5 and you can't tell.

I think that's a good thing, it stops all the whistle whores from voting abusive on reviews that others have, also the fact that it shows as Usless for both the Unhelpful vote and Abusive vote might mean we see more garbage whistle users, lol.

Exactly. We didn't see a need for people to know exact numbers, and I'm glad to see that someone finally agrees...

And you'll also find that one or two votes in either direction does not affect a review much. Also, I forsee a lot of extra (useless) clicks as we no longer indicate tell people to stop voting multiple times or for themselves. We just let them assume all their bad intentions are working, when it really doesn't.

At 1/11/08 02:13 AM, RupeeClock wrote: I'm just thinking, if the reviews can have these nice little user icons, why can't the BBS?
Or maybe even the profile pictures?

Because you have an entire SIGNATURE IMAGE for that. If it's so important, put your user icon down there. :P

Alright, we're looking for a game of Griffball in Halo 3, but Tim and I don't have enough friends online right now. "Any" friends online, actually. :(

So if you're up for giving it a go with us, send me a friend request: natelys whcr3

*fingers crossed*

At 1/9/08 01:50 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: rich-ass mofo, Tom is.

I love how the source is www.retireat21.com . Reliable source, right there....

Get a clue, people.

ORLY?

Well, it's gone now.

At 12/29/07 08:07 PM, NightCrawler wrote: I'm a giants fan. But fantasy team wise, I need the patriots to do good. So I don't know what to feel anymore.

What should I do? :'(

Kill yourself. Fuck the Pats.

"heartfelt" is one word. nice design, but text speaks the loudest. make sure you copyedit, copyedit, copyedit.

At 12/19/07 10:23 AM, Scrotaculous wrote: If I ordered one today will it ship normally since it didn't vanish from the store on December 13th?

Magic 8 Ball says:
"It is decidedly so."

(Meaning I'll ship it same-day.)

Negative people who don't believe "where there's a will, there's a way".

I've got an Intellivision in my basement. Complete with Burgertime and Worm Whomper. I had it hooked up in college, but ever since I've been too busy. Maybe I should bring it into the office.

Does Intellevision trump the Calecovision?

Very pretty.

At 12/13/07 06:40 PM, bigbadron wrote:

At 12/13/07 06:38 PM, bob wrote: Anyway, hope this allays your fears.

i hope you sealed my package with a kiss.

I did. And noticed that you ordered extras for your friends. Very "holiday spirit" of you, Mr. K.

I send out ALL orders well within 24 hours of receiving them. Personally.

If you didn't get your stuff right after ordering it, the reason could be your Paypal payment was an "echeck" and didn't clear right away. Packages might travel more slowly than letters because of the size or whatever the postman had for breakfast in Wichita Falls, TX.

Anyway, people in the UK and Australia have been getting their orders in four (YES, 4!) days after ordering them. Just ask BlueHippo; he was angry that it took longer to get to him in the midwest than it did to the United-fucking-Kingdom.

Anyway, hope this allays your fears.

It happens randomly to people here and there. It is NOT a case of changing the text size. It's something to do with the css not loading completely. Refreshing fixes it.

So far, I've only heard it happen to Jim and Mike here in the office, and they're both on PCs with Firefox. I've not seen it on my Mac yet.

At 12/6/07 07:44 PM, Vengeance wrote:

At 12/6/07 06:55 PM, bob wrote: 2. The price does not include shipping. It's $3 to ship it to the U.S., and I think like $8 to get it to Europe.

And for Australia? I'm thinking of buying 3 or 4.

About the same. Good thing the dollar is weak....

At 12/6/07 07:18 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 12/6/07 06:55 PM, bob wrote:

1. Thhe price does not include shipping. It's $3 to ship it to the U.S., and I think like $8 to get it to Europe.

Where are they made?

China, of course. (What a silly question...!) :)

At 12/6/07 06:28 PM, Vengeance wrote:

At 12/6/07 06:07 PM, TomFulp wrote: The money is for the families, not the war. There's a difference.

Which is a really good cause, imagine finding out your only son has been killed in war.

Anyway, how big are they Tom? Also, does the money include shipping?

1. They sit about 8 inches tall. They are made of the same type of plush fabric that Beanie Babies are made from, so they're really soft. And there are beans in the butt to give them some heft. I don't think anyone will be disappointed with the quality.

2. The price does not include shipping. It's $3 to ship it to the U.S., and I think like $8 to get it to Europe.

BTW, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere that these things are kinda like beanie babies. They've got little beans in their butts to give them weight and make them "plop" on the desk in a sitting position...