I am sooo happy.

Look at my new signature!

Cool.

i dont like, sorry. but its too cool for my taste and the "destroyed" look i dont like. stereotypish anarchistish?

That sig.. fucking rox!

Nice jawb, you made it? If so, with what?

Really nice sig, looks nice.

Awesome, though I've never understood the black feline

Ya, i never knew where the black cat originated, but i like it.

And the signature... words cannot express the awesome.

Where'd it come from/who made it?

I appreciate the love for the new sig. :]

First, no, I didn't make it; I am talentless when it comes to PhotoShop and all of that other shit. It was made by a guy in a gaming clan that I'm in, and he FAR exceeded my expectations for it.

As for the black cat, his name is "Sabcat", and according to an IWW member named Ralph Chaplin the cat "was commonly used by the boys as representing the idea of sabotage.
The idea being to frighten the employer by the mention of the name
sabotage, or by putting a black cat somewhere around. You know if you
saw a black cat go across your path you would think, if you were
superstitious, you are going to have a little bad luck. The idea of
sabotage is to use a little black cat on the boss." I've also heard another story from herethat talks about the cat - the first few lines covers the story.

But my usage of it is for a different reason. For me, it has to do with the Great Cat Massacre which was analyzed reasonably well by Robert Darnton - who I think is a good historian - to be an early example of a protest. Basically, a couple of apprentice printers murdered their boss' cats because the cats received better treatment than they did. I mean, that just blows me away; a bunch of CATS were treated better than HUMAN BEINGS. That just speaks volumes to the nature of the bourgeoisie, I think. So, for me, the cat has a dual meaning - he is both a liberating figure which represents the tenacity of the working class, but he is also a symbol of privilege that must be put to an end.

WeiWuWei wrote:

"a couple of apprentice printers murdered their boss' cats because the cats received better treatment than they did. I mean, that just blows me away;"

While reading this I thought 'Yeah. That's a stupid thing to kill some cats over (most things are). The boss is the one that did them wrong. They shouldn't have taken it out on the cats (except for the howling I later read about, but still...).'.

WeiWuWei wrote:

"a bunch of CATS were treated better than HUMAN BEINGS."

And then I got here. '...um ...ok'




On the other hand, it was probably worse for the boss than if they had just killed him. That way he would have to mourn his beloved cats instead of essentially just escaping (via death).

I guess cats don't have nine lives, after all. Just two.

MightyObserver wrote:

While reading this I thought 'Yeah. That's a stupid thing to kill some cats over (most things are). The boss is the one that did them wrong. They shouldn't have taken it out on the cats.'.

And then I got here. '...um ...ok'

Well... okay, I see your point. But the story is crazy. The cats are pampered and are spoiled rotten; the laborers eat the crums from their masters' feast and work day and night. But the cat sits in the lap of luxury. The point was that the cat was treated like a human being, and the human beings were treated like animals.

I mean, yeah, it sucks that a bunch of cats got killed, but I think that the squalor of the working conditions that these men worked through, frankly, constitute a greater crime.

WeiWuWei wrote:

The point was that the cat was treated like a human being, and the human beings were treated like animals.

A human is a kind of animal. 'Treated like animals' means nothing, but I know what you mean by it, anyway.

WeiWuWei wrote:

the squalor of the working conditions that these men worked through, frankly, constitute a greater crime.

Yes (not becuase they were cats), but one does not necessarily justify the other.

MightyObserver wrote:

A human is a kind of animal. 'Treated like animals' means nothing, but I know what you mean by it, anyway.

For pragmatic reasons "animal" is used to refer to any sentient being without capability of abstraction at least as perceptibly large as ours.

MightyObserver wrote:

Yes (not becuase they were cats), but one does not necessarily justify the other.

It's not justified. But it was just symbolic. On the other hand, it would have been justified if the cats had been killed and eaten by the workers. Now that would be justified.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

For pragmatic reasons "animal" is used to refer to any sentient being without capability of abstraction at least as perceptibly large as ours.

I... know... that. That's why I said this:

MightyObserver wrote:

I know what you mean by it

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

On the other hand, it would have been justified if the cats had been killed and eaten by the workers. Now that would be justified.

Perhaps (this is my answer wether you're joking or not).

MightyObserver wrote:

I... know... that. That's why I said this:

MightyObserver wrote:

I know what you mean by it

I know. I was just expressing my aversion to call humans "animals".

MightyObserver wrote:

Perhaps (this is my answer wether you're joking or not).

I'm not joking. For me killing animals, so long as you eat them, is justified.

Cat meat is suppose to be bad. Tough :S.

Liche wrote:

Cat meat is suppose to be bad. Tough :S.

If it was good enough for Parisians during the siege, it's probably good enough for poor, hungry workers

As for the black cat story, that's pretty cool. Thanks for the info Frank.