Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site scirtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd
From: todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.news,net.misc,net.flame
Subject: USENET frowning upon graphics in signatures
Message-ID: <491@scirtp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 14:30:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: scirtp.491
Posted: Thu Oct 10 14:30:43 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 08:19:51 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 33
Xref: linus net.news:3241 net.misc:7287 net.flame:11369

To my dismay, our site received a message regarding a change
to the rules for posting to Usenet.

The most recent change is as follows:

> most definitely frowned upon. DO NOT include drawings, pictures,
> maps, or other graphics in your signature -- it is not the
> appropriate place for such material and viewed as rude by
> other readers.

I fail to see the harm in including a (concise) graphic at the
end of a posting. Sure, it costs a bit more (pretty minimal in
most cases) to send it around, but I have gotten more comments
(either positive or curiously entertained) from my ever mutating
graphic depiction of my face than I have from my postings.
I cannot see how anyone could construe my graphic as rude,
especially when you compare it to anything on net.flame, 
net.politics, net.women, net.abortion, and on and on.

Also, my closing graphic is not a signature per se. Big deal,
you may respond, but since I concatenate it into my posting,
I modify it differently for each article in a manner appropriate
for the tone of the article, thus I consider it very informational.
Remember what they say about a picture's worth...

Besides my sig is only 6 lines long. Maybe I can trim it down.

   |||||||
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    |___|        SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.

See, now it's only four lines. Is that any less offensive?