Originally posted by §P0oONY
Signatures don't have to be/include one's name. They can be anything. They're just used to identify the person.
sig¡Ena¡Eture  /ˈsɪgnətʃər, -ˌtʃʊr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sig-nuh-cher, -choor] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
¡Vnoun 1. a person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.
Since signatures on this page are always changing and don't always have anything to do with the person or what is said or what was meant and are also generally applied to most posts they just do not fit the "signatures" as they are used by AC or JM. They are different things. And both can very well exist together.
Well, Our signatures do represent our names... Not directly but they do, the fact that some people's are always changing really doesn't effect anything. People's written signatures can and do change. They are still signatures though. The image/text under our posts are still signatures even if they do change often.
Originally posted by §P0oONY
Well, Our signatures do represent our names... Not directly but they do, the fact that some people's are always changing really doesn't effect anything. People's written signatures can and do change. They are still signatures though. The image/text under our posts are still signatures even if they do change often.
They can show it, yes. But then there are also people surfing this forum with plain text. And some people might think that it gives their posts a more serious note. That they thought about it before they signed their names. Who knows, not me...I never lost control.
But either way, i don't see a problem with signing your posts, just as I don't see one with not doing it. Generally a signature is pointless on an Internet forum where posts are specifically assigned to the user that did post them.