Didn't we have this same discussion some months ago -- and come to the conclusion that it's not *required* but recommended. Why are we re-hashing this? Do we really want the fight to start all over again? Marsha Kelly & the Flock wrote: > > I can't see how a specific logo would squelch anyone's > individuality/creativity (in its entirety anyway). Offering logos in a few > different colors actually helps to prevent that monotony... i.e., if you > want a pink scheme, you can put a pink logo on it, or something blue, > neutral, etc. (okay... hopefully not PINK) > > With the existing logos, frankly... all 3 color choices clash miserably with > the "colonial blue" of the WIGenWeb page although I am suffering with it > quietly. > > Kelly > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan & Glenn [mailto:cristian@netonecom.net] > > Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 4:19 PM > > To: WIGEN-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: [WIGEN-L] Re: Logo or No.... > > > > > > While I agree that we need to all have something that identifies > > us with the > > WIGenWeb - don't you think that you are taking away all my individuality > > MAK???? > > > > Same format, logos and a couple of color choices??? Geez - like one sheep > > following the others and we don't like cow butt's? Guess we need > > to change > > it to a sheeps behind!!! What's the next step - perfectly > > synchronized raw > > data pages??? > > > > Just my two cents worth... > > > > Jan