On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Linda Walsh
jdebert wrote:
The project *ignores* stuff in a sig. It is not part of the content of the discussion. It may come from a random sig generator. It can be a quote that the author of the note MAY not even agree with -- it simple is a quote from some random source. To get worked up about it is illogical, a sign of insecurity, and perhaps even illness, so if the foo fits, wear it -- i.e. the more you complain about it, the more you assert to everyone that it applied to you.
Ignore?
It's amzing that the various rules of list etiquette, in existence for decades, have so consistently been overlooked.
Traditionally, signatures are not required to be relevant to a topic of a message. However, it has never been tradition to ignore signatures, especially offensive or outrageous ones, whether they are a quote or quip.
---- It has always been a the standard to ignore signatures, else every message would be an invitation to an off-topic discussion.
Only a small minority of sigs rise to the point of being sufficiently offensive, that action needs to be taken -- but if you look at the number of sigs, and look at the number that are even commented on, I think you will find what I said is true -- the project, as a whole, ignores what is in a sig.
My body ignores dust that settles on it. That's a reasonably true statement, but if it was some deadly toxin that cause my skin to rot, or if it was enough dust to suffocate me, THEN it's gone beyond "normal" and my body can't ignore it.
The two of you are describing the same behaviour, and are merely labelling it differently. We see very few signatures that warrant a response, and so we don't see a response. Those few signatures that do warrant a response get responses. In fact, one goes so far as to say that sometimes it can not be ignored. One says, based on the former, that the standard is to ignore signatures, and the other says, based on the latter, that there is no tradition to ignore signatures. While it seems to me that the latter is more accurate, it also seems to me that that is a rather silly thing to argue about.
[snip]
And to tell someone they're being unreasonable regarding some offensive remark in a signature--Then all women must be unreasonable. And ill.
---- I didn't say they were unreasonable, I said if they get worked up over a random quote-generator output, that may not even represent the opinion of the writer, they are not engaging in 'reasonable' discussion or expectations.
Nonsense. First, a response may be coloured by the passion one feels when one feels attacked (and it is quite reasonable to see an attack on a group of which one is a member as an attack on oneself), or it may be coloured by anger at such an attack, or both; or there may be other factors injecting emotion into the response. And, depending on the reaction one gets to his first reaction, matters may be exacerbated. Often, reacting to abuse opens one to further abuse. None of this implies, or can be taken to infer, that the person's discourse and expectations on the matter are unreasonable. I dare say that this whole thread could have been avoided if the first person to see the complaint attempted to understand the complainant's view and simply acknowledged that, and directed him to the right place to voice his complaint. Instead, it seems some took pleasure in throwing fuel into the fire, as it were. Second, use of a random quote generator does not make the person who uses it 'not responsible' for what it produces. We are all responsible for everything that ends up in our emails (or anything else that we write). When we quote another person, we are responsible to ensure that we quote fairly. We are responsible for what we write. And, whether we construct our own, static signature or use an autogenerated one, we are responsible for it. You seem to say that we're not responsible for the content of our signature when we use an autogenerated one, but the fact is that we choose whether or not to use such a thing, and therefore, but virtue of having made that choice, we are responsible for what we allow it to add to our email. No excuses. If that system lets us preview, and thus accept or reject what it has added in a given instance, then, when we find something we don't approve of, it behooves us to tell it to offer another (and if it does not support such a capability, then we are foolish to use such a system). We are responsible for our decisions to use such software and for what we allow it to add to our messages. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, regardless of the source of a signature, we approve of it's content. It is irresponsible to reply saying, my computer put those words in my mouth. Computers are really stupid things, doing only what they are told to do. Cheers Ted -- R.E.(Ted) Byers, Ph.D.,Ed.D. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org