As I noticed in your lovely discussion with Elle months ago, you fail to comprehend or really read the post. Opiniin based upon appearance is not actually saying that is your motive. I am simply pointing out a perception of the signature based upon the pages of walls of text in this discussion. Not an accusation and certainly not a statement of fact as only YOU know truly why you do or say anything.
Come on now Trigger, you asked me to get over it and move on. The assertion is rather clear.
As to my signature it raises two points that you would know of me from being on here this long.
Firstly is the fact that I change my signatures rarely. I have in my time here in the last maybe 4 years had 6 or less signatures and many much longer than the one of Elle's. What does that show? It shows simply that I rarely change signatures. Signatures are usually generated at a "Wow" moment. I find something written and think "This is sig worthy." Up it goes. When do I change it? Well being here as long as you have, and seeing the walls of text I write and the attached signatures( that you notice far more than I), know I change it when I see something else pertinent.
My signature of Lord Phelexor was up only a month and maybe less. Why? Because I "got over it?" Because he was no longer playing internet tough guy and was not mock-worthy? Because things had "moved on"?
Nope. Because someone called Eclair posted something I read and thought "Ah new sig"
Eclair's stuck around for a long time and similarly I had forgotten about it. I was chatting to her once and she bought it up and asked if I was ever gonna change it and that she had no real issue with it either way. I said I had forgotten about it and yes I would change it at some point. She laughed and called me something uncomplimentary, which I agreed with wholeheartedly.
I did change it in time too. Another poster called Elle posted something and I thought....but see you know that I keep sigs a long time and what I change them too and that it has nothing to do with being tied to an issue and yet you make the inference to the contrary.
Now you are trying to tell me that you can only surmise this based on what you know of my behaviour.
Which comes to the next point and that is you see my interactions on here and therefore you know that I react on much and dwell on little. I have been doing this for years and yet you insinuate that I have to get over something you bring up months after teh event and try to insinuate that I have some investment in it despite as shown above clear reasons to the contrary.
Why is that?
You did not do so well explaining first time around. The obsession thing makes no sense. The "move along" makes no sense. (It is scarily likened to Parakeet coming here months after we went to WP and assuming we had some focus on that past)
Can you try again, but this time in a way that makes it look more like you had a serious point and less like you were not just trying to stick up for Elle, months after all has been resolved?
Thanks
