Jump to content
The Education Forum

Photographs as Avatars


Recommended Posts

It is a rule of this forum that all members have to use a photograph as a avatar. We have found it helps to humanize communications and people are less likely to abuse other members if they know they can be traced.

In some cases members have emailed me with good reasons for not posting a photograph. However, until David R. Von Pein, has refused point-blank to post a photograph. I have therefore suspended his membership until he adides by this rule. For those who have not done so, could you please upload a photograph. This is how you do it.

Select “My Controls” (top, right of the screen).

On the left-hand side click ‘Edit Avatar Settings’ (under Personal Profile).

Go to the bottom of the page where it says ‘Upload a new image from your computer’. Click ‘Browse’.

(A box will appear at the top that will show what is on your computer. You now have to find your photograph (best to leave it on your Desktop – if not, find the folder where you have stored it).

Click the image and then click ‘Open’.

Now click ‘Update Avatar’. You picture should now appear on the screen. It will now appear every time you make a posting.

If you have difficulty in this, please send me your photograph by email and I will do it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, John. I think there is strong reason to believe that as in the case of Larry Peters, David Von Pein is a pseudonym used by another forum member. I have received emails stating that he was banished from other venues for the same practice. If true, you should banish the "other" person also, upon sufficient evidence. Unfortunately the Peters alter ego was not banished. Deceit is not a good base on which to present "research".

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good, John. I think there is strong reason to believe that as in the case of Larry Peters, David Von Pein is a pseudonym used by another forum member. I have received emails stating that he was banished from other venues for the same practice. If true, you should banish the "other" person also, upon sufficient evidence. Unfortunately the Peters alter ego was not banished. Deceit is not a good base on which to present "research".

Jack

Jack, are you so senile that you have forgotten that it was you who posted a photo of Larry and I shaking hands with the caption asking what we were shaking hands about? When you are not implying that Larry and I are planning some sort of an attack on your poorly thought out claims - you are then claiming that we are all CIA. You have said recently that you do not have the time to invest in the JFK assassination because of your being needed in the 9/11 and moon conspiracy matters, so why not do it and quit wasting peoples time by always whining about individuals who were outspoken concerning your alteration claims. I am starting to wonder by some of these recent post of yours if John Simkin sometimes wonders if he running a JFK education forum or a day car center for people who care to act like whining babies.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may appear i'm simply being mean raising this issue, for reasons that will become clear, but I'd like to ask whether there should be rules about the visibility of facial features in avatars used on this forum.

I've recently been locked in disputes of some intensity with Len Colby, and would like very much to have more "humanized communication" and to obtain a better idea of the personality of my correspondent from his facial appearance.

Now, I realize I'm no beauty, but after repeatedly staring at Len's avatar, I'm sorry to say that I find it hard to visualize him as a human being at all. When I squint, I can just make out the features of a small child with a large pumpkin on her head. Most of the time I can't discern any coherent image at all.

Could there be a rule about this? Perhaps the image of the face should be no less than 80% of the width of the photo - and masks and purdah disallowed? :rolleyes:

_____________________

Len's current avatar, for those who don't recall it:

av-3442.jpg

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I realize I'm no beauty, but after repeatedly staring at Len's avatar, I'm sorry to say that I find it hard to visualize him as a human being at all. When I squint, I can just make out the features of a small child with a large pumpkin on her head. Most of the time I can't discern any coherent image at all.

Could there be a rule about this? Perhaps the image of the face should be no less than 80% of the width of the photo - and masks and purdah disallowed?  :D

Sid, I have an observation and a solution ... I notice that your image is blurred and Len's, while smaller, is sharper, so with a magnifying glass - Len's actually has a better image to offer than you do.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may appear i'm simply being mean raising this issue, for reasons that will become clear, but I'd like to ask whether there should be rules about the visibility of facial features in avatars used on this forum.

I've recently been locked in disputes of some intensity with Len Colby, and would like very much to have more "humanized communication" and to obtain a better idea of the personality of my correspondent from his facial appearance.

Now, I realize I'm no beauty, but after repeatedly staring at Len's avatar, I'm sorry to say that I find it hard to visualize him as a human being at all. When I squint, I can just make out the features of a small child with a large pumpkin on her head. Most of the time I can't discern any coherent image at all.

Could there be a rule about this? Perhaps the image of the face should be no less than 80% of the width of the photo - and masks and purdah disallowed? :up

_____________________

Len's current avatar, for those who don't recall it:

av-3442.jpg

Better?

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len's current avatar, for those who don't recall it:

av-3442.jpg

Better?

Jack

This looks like one of those 'the conspirators didn't get it right' images. Len's image is clear and Jack's image is blurred and degraded.

Bill Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Len's current avatar, for those who don't recall it:

av-3442.jpg

Better?

Jack

This looks like one of those 'the conspirators didn't get it right' images. Len's image is clear and Jack's image is blurred and degraded.

Bill Miller

It looks like an obvious fake, quick let's get Jack White to check it out! UUUH on second thought, never mind :):)

Also, you can get a better idea of Len's features in his avatar by tilting your head to the right.

Yes, I agree. The further right, the clearer it becomes. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Oh yeah I'm an extreme right winger, thats why I slag Bush! :lol::lol::lol::lol: BS thinks I'm a Commie
Now, I realize I'm no beauty, but after repeatedly staring at Len's avatar, I'm sorry to say that I find it hard to visualize him as a human being at all. When I squint, I can just make out the features of a small child with a large pumpkin on her head. Most of the time I can't discern any coherent image at all.

Could there be a rule about this? Perhaps the image of the face should be no less than 80% of the width of the photo - and masks and purdah disallowed?  :D

Sid, I have an observation and a solution ... I notice that your image is blurred and Len's, while smaller, is sharper, so with a magnifying glass - Len's actually has a better image to offer than you do.

Bill

Makes one think of the cliche about the pot and the kettle.

Sid if you compare my looks to flora I could well comepare yours to fauna. Let's try to be less childish.

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...