They look right to me. 1024x768px and 9KB for an image like that sound perfectly correctGilly said:That doesn't look like the properties of that image though. Sure you didn't mis-click?

As I said I replaced the image earlier and thats not the location of the image I replaced.Al Vallario said:They look right to me. 1024x768px and 9KB for an image like that sound perfectly correct![]()
The URL in the screenshot still points to the same image though: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/basmic/SPAMIBTL.gifGilly said:As I said I replaced the image earlier and thats not the location of the image I replaced.
No, that webspace was definitely not the url I replaced in her sig.Al Vallario said:The file name is case-sensitive for some reason. That might have caused some confusion?
Gilly said:No, that webspace was definitely not the url I replaced in her sig.
I assumed so from the name, sounds girly to me. You know what they say about assumption I suppose.cleanbluesky said:Phnom Penh is a girl?
Thats dirtydog posting the image so phnom could see it in case they were still viewing their cached sig image.A random name said:And again![]()
cleanbluesky said:Phnom Penh is a girl?
Ah.Gilly said:I assumed so from the name, sounds girly to me. You know what they say about assumption I suppose.
Thats dirtydog posting the image so phnom could see it in case they were still viewing their cached sig image.

It doesn't. The file name of the image basmic posted is SPAMI.gif, and that of PP's signature was IBTLSPAM.gif. basmic probably posted the image as IBTLSPAM.gif first, then switched it around and edited his post with the new location of the original image (Hence "Last edited by basmic : 9th Sep 2006 at 17:53").A random name said:But what i find wierd, if you go into the said topic and view the image which basmic posted... It has the same url as the image in the signature? I'm confused![]()