Ned – you guys need to read what it written not what you want to see adn to be precise in your language. For creatives in the advertising industry your grasp of semantics is not great. You consistently (altho graham was the worst) said I had made categorical statements when I had made qualified ones. I pointed out one superb example that Graham did where he simply ignored the “some of” when quoting me
near the beginning of all this I pulled this selection. consistently thru the thread I used qualified statements and qualifying words
MF – and I believe you vastly overstate it.
Those 5 – as I said 1 and 3 convey the same information clearly and concisely – my name. The rest are just annoying as they are not clear.
there is no other information there – just clear name or unclear name. this other information only exists if you know the “language” and most of us don’t know it and dont care. its like the handkerchief in pocket thing for signals about your sexuality.
Stumpy – only if you understand the “language” which most folk who do not work in that world do not.
Really? Proof? lets see some.
its grossly overstated IMO
In the case of the logos and the font – the meaning of the font is not inherent in the font. its a construction of those in the industry and is meaningless to many of us outside the industry. I have no idea what you are intending to convey by the different fonts. I see a fancy font and I think – “winker”