how do you make a quote appear in your signature?

[sasser]

i have no idea how to do it?, and none of my mates do either.
any help would be much appreciated

cheers'n'beers

nick.

[johnny]

i have no idea how to do it?, and none of my mates do either.
any help would be much appreciated

cheers'n'beers

nick.

Use the code as in [QUOTE=whomever] and with the missing bracket /QUOTE]

[Joel O]

Use the code as in [QUOTE=whomever] and with the missing bracket /QUOTE]if you are trying to put in a quote from a thread, click quote in the bottom left and it will come up with the text already inside the quote tags, delete any text you don't want, highlight and copy it all and then just paste it into your sig, remember to save changes, caught me out plenty of times.

[roasted]

I suggest not using a quote box and doing it like me. less bulky. Im sick of giant signatures (kona_boy, anyone?)

[wombat]

Yeah, as roasted said we would prefer it if you could just format quotes as standard text rather than using the quote box. Something like this maybe:

"Please don't have huge sigs, they're cumbersome and ugly."
- wombat

[johnny]

Yeah, as roasted said we would prefer it if you could just format quotes as standard text rather than using the quote box. Something like this maybe:

"Please don't have huge sigs, they're cumbersome and ugly."
- wombat
Kinda like my E.E. Schattschneider quote.

"Organisation is the mobilisation of bias".

Ah Schattschneider, will he ever learn.....? :rolleyes: :)

Now, for an organisation to be formed there has to be either "common ground" or a "common cause". Either goal orientated or interest orientated. Therefore an organisation has a belief in a definition that suits their ends. One could say that they are biased in their opinion on a particular topic. Therefore, they are all biased in a similar way.

To be organised is to be mobilised. Mobilisation can cover everything from marching in the streets, setting up a deep trance dance party or attempting to sell off the national telco carrier. Either way, to organise something or some ones to be more appropriate, their bias on a particular view has to be mobilised to make it work (setting up a party, organising petitions, creating a voting bloc, setting up a downhill shuttle day)

Therefore, "organisation is the mobilisation of bias".

This may not seem too profound to some, yet when politics is concerned, it's pretty high up there. For when forming contentious policy, say an invasion on a non-aggressive country, locking up asylum seekers without charge or legal representation or abolishing mandatory student unionism, you will do your best not to mobilise a bias against you. This is done by setting high social and legal barriers of inclusion in the policy formulation process disallowing any input from dissenting parties.

We see this every day from both sides of government. One way of doing it via social/cultural means is by marginalising the opposition. this can be done by calling people "the Mob" as John Howard did of the 250 000 people that marched in Sydney against the invasion of Iraq or "extremists" as Howard called a large element of the Islamic society that didn't meet his criteria for recent tlaks on terrorism. Or labelling protesters as "the fringe element, lefty's, the vocal minority, latte set, chardonney sipping socialist" and so on.

Of course these labels have no basis in reality or any kind of evidence to rest the claim on. Yet they are employed to great extent and effect in order to exclude dissenting voices from policy formation.

"Organisation is the mobilisation of bias"

Another key to this is the word "organisation". If a certain bias can be organised/mobilised it becomes a more potent force. Therefore one would be wise to deny their opponent the ability to organise and collectivise. this is why we hear "there's infighting/disagreement/dissent in the ranks of the Liberals/Labor party(s). It's saying to the electorate that they are not organised, therefore there is no common bias amongst the party meaning that the policies that you voted for may well change in the near future, thus delegitamising the administration/party collective.

This can also be seen in dictatorial countries. It can also be seen in Australia. It is illegal to form a communist party in Australia (democracy?). This law was obviously legislated after the second world war. The idea was that Communism was a threat to the national interest therefore allowing this bias to mobilise and organise could threaten Australia. Therefore they cannot form a party. A party is an organisation, if they are not organised, you've just got a few people running around doing their own thing up against a well disciplined, organised bias.

One country in the world where it can be seen the most is China. Whilst China now has private enterprise and land ownership, it is still officially Communist. The only real communistic aspect of China is that they only have one political party (the Chinese Communist Party - CCP). They do not want any threats to their power so they stop any organisation from forming that may collectivise/organise/mobilise a bias against them.

Falun Gong is the perfect example. It's a spiritual sect that has been brutally pursued by the CCP. It has the power to lend one voice to millions of dissaffected therebye threatening the power of the CCP. Religion is another collective bias that the CCP moniters closely. there are very few churches (and I mean you can count them on your fingys!) in China and the Pope was never allowed to visit. There are underground churches throughout the country but they must be very careful to conceal themselves.

Good examples of how powerful a mobilised bias can be is in Poland in the 1980's. Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement teamed up with the Catholic church to rid the country of Communism. Being that Poland is an overly predominately Catholic country, this was a mobilising bias that allowed the organisation to form and threaten the USSR/Communist leadership. It is widely believed (pretty much no one with a brain in their head will say otherwise) that the assasination attempt on the Pope was ordered by Russia via Hungary. The Soviets were trying to take out the leader/figurehead of one of the two organisations to create a disaggregated less potent force to deal with. The Russians new that:

"Organisation is the mobilisation of bias". E.E. Schattschneider.

So profound.............Wish I'd said it first. :(

[johnny]

That SOO deserves a thread of it's own!

[Caine]

if you want to quote somthing off a thead. i just quote them. then copy and past the quote box! :cool:

[rabatt]

i wanna quote the whole of johnys post in my sig!!!!
but its alittle to long:rolleyes:






ok...that was piontless!!

[johnny]

i wanna quote the whole of johnys post in my sig!!!!
but its alittle to long:rolleyes:






ok...that was piontless!!Can you sumarise it for me? I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing.....

[Pete J]

Can you sumarise it for me? I couldn't be bothered reading the whole thing.....

Hey, that's my line!! :mad:




:p

[conor.1]

quoting still isnt working:mad:

[LIAM?!]

quoting still isnt working:mad:

Im pretty sure im spot on with this, I tried exactly what your trying WITHOUT trading access then once I got trading access I had so much more ability with changing my signature and I could quote like you want too.

[wombat]

Im pretty sure im spot on with this, I tried exactly what your trying WITHOUT trading access then once I got trading access I had so much more ability with changing my signature and I could quote like you want too.
Well bugger me, you seem to be on to something. I just tested the theory and it's right, without trading access the quote tags do nothing, with trading access they bring up the quote box.

I have no idea why however, and it should be a moot point anyway, please don't put the quote box in your sig, just text it.