Felix Miata wrote:

Per Jessen wrote:

...

Test results: opensuse mailing list.

Would be nice if there was a discoverable place to learn what it is and how to subscribe. It isn't on http://www.suse.com/us/private/support/online_help/mailinglists/ anyplace I can see.

Apologies, I thought it was well known : http://www.opensuse.org/ /Per Jessen, Zürich (0.81 °C) -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Let us analyse your spam- and virus-threat - up to 2 months for free.

On Friday 20 January 2006 6:19 am, James Knott wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

And I find it offensive you called it BS.

On Friday 20 January 2006 6:19 am, James Knott wrote:

please keep the religious BS to yourself.  Many of us find it offensive.

Calling someone else's sig "religious BS" is offensive. Bryan **************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ****************************************

On 1/20/06 9:51 AM, "Randall R Schulz" wrote:

I agree with James.

Religion offends intellect by the nature of religion and intellect.

Religion in a Linux forum is utterly off-topic, even as a signature.

It's his personalized sig. You are welcome to have your own. You have the same right as he has. You should understand that being in the US. And it's not like it takes up ten lines or something...it was short... -- Thanks, George Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

James, On Friday 20 January 2006 16:45, James Knott wrote:

...

So then, you won't mind if I start including some inappropriate sexual or racial comments in my sigs? Religion is every bit as offensive to me, as those are to others.

Sadly, we've already got that. Check out the postings of "JB ". Randall Schulz --

Fergus Wilde wrote:

I respectfully submit once again that in order to keep this kind of exchange of taking of offence to a minimum it would help if people limit their sigs to name and address.

The name and address of a poster are generally found in the email-header and repeating them in the .sig will surely be offensive to people who abhorr repetition. I hesitate to join this debate as 1) the question of what is offensive to one and not to another can never be answered definitively and 2) the debate has already gone on for long enough. I am very surprised of the amount of debate a religious .sig has initiated. Whatever people say or put in their .sigs on a mailinglist or elsewhere can only serve to say something about themselves, not about others. If you are abusive, if you swear, if your use of english/german/italian spanish/icelandic is poor, it still only says something about you, your skills, your beliefs and/or your character. If religious zealots wish to portray themselves as such, so be it. If Linux or Windows bigots wish to portray themselves as such, so be it. Etc. I for instance want to advertise my company and our awesome services and I am without a doubt more than a little impressed with what good I do do for mankind. To conclude - if you feel offended by what someone said or put in their .sig, take note and perhaps add that person to your kill-file or filter. They have a right to say what they want and let world know how bright/silly/dim/biggoted/stupid/naive they are - but they can't make you listen. /Per Jessen, Zürich (-4.69 °C) -- http://www.spamchek.com/ - managed anti-spam and anti-virus solution. Let us analyse your spam- and virus-threat - up to 2 months for free.

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:19, James Knott wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

Maybe you're being too sensitive. It's just a sig. :) Fish "Within the context of a multicultural, multi-ethnic dimension, concrete values accrue to the community that expresses a viable faith tradition" [-- The Book of Politically Correct Psalms, section 28, paragraph 1145, subsection 97.c.31]

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 18:32 -0500, James Knott wrote:

Mark Crean wrote:

...

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:19, James Knott wrote:

...

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

Maybe you're being too sensitive. It's just a sig.

No, just fed up with those who insist on imposing such nonsense on others. Right now, we've got a federal election coming up in Canada. One of the main candidates is a bible thumper, who want's to turn back the clock on many laws. On of the candidates in his party still believes human life started with Adam & Eve, some 6 thousand years ago. This sort of garbage must be stopped! Fortunately, the courts in Pennsylvania recently agreed, WRT "Inteligent Design".

Let's keep the politics off the list please. Especially those of Canada, in which I live and am a citizen.

On Saturday 21 January 2006 08:58, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 6:32 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

No, just fed up with those who insist on imposing such nonsense on others.  Right now, we've got a federal election coming up in Canada. One of the main candidates is a bible thumper, who want's to turn back the clock on many laws.  On of the candidates in his party still believes human life started with Adam & Eve, some 6 thousand years ago.  This sort of garbage must be stopped!  Fortunately, the courts in Pennsylvania recently agreed, WRT "Inteligent Design".

You complain about "Bible thumpers," then proceed to make umpteen posts "thumping" your atheism?

Drop it man - let's get back to Linux

**************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer

Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net **************************************** It IS FACT that the bible and all of it's content is nothing more that myth and hearsay and that goes for ALL Religeons ..

AND I DO MEAN ALL ! .. Pete . -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM

On Saturday 21 January 2006 04:19 am, Peter Nikolic wrote:

On Saturday 21 January 2006 08:58, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:

...

On Friday 20 January 2006 6:32 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

No, just fed up with those who insist on imposing such nonsense on others.  Right now, we've got a federal election coming up in Canada. <snip> It IS FACT that the bible and all of it's content is nothing more that myth and hearsay and that goes for ALL Religeons ..

Actually, the Bible is as much history as anything. Though one has to keep in mind that many of the books in the old testament were written only after hundreds of years after the original stories were orally communicated from one clan to another. Many of the stories are based on fact and have been verified as at least having a kernel of truth prior to their embelleshment over time. That said, one needs to keep in mind that the opinion of a person - whether placed in a signature or not - is simply that: an opinion. One of the issues I find these days is that people tend to extend the concept of religion - an outward expression of faith - into the computer world. I'm seeing this not only with the Windows vs. Linux zealots but also with the SUSE vs. Gentoo vs. Red Hat vs. <insert distro here> and even with the KDE vs. Gnome vs. Window Managers vs. CLI camps. I would hope that all can take in each other's opinion and understand that everyone is entitled to one. Now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion. Anyone drink any new beers lately? Oh, and how do I get KMail to auto-accept HTML emails? Though I despise them, some of my newsletters insist on sending in that format and I hate having to constantly click on two links to get the mail to display the way I want it. -- kai www.perfectreign.com linux - genuine windows replacement part

On Saturday 21 January 2006 07:14 pm, ka1ifq wrote:

On Saturday 21 January 2006 21:19, Kai Ponte wrote:

...

Oh, and how do I get KMail to auto-accept HTML emails? Though I despise them, some of my newsletters insist on sending in that format and I hate having to constantly click on two links to get the mail to display the way I want it. --

Folder -> Prefer HTML to Plain Text

Thank you. Several Google searches didn't bring up that extremely simple answer. I'm glad I asked. -- kai www.perfectreign.com linux - genuine windows replacement part

On Sunday 22 January 2006 9:26 am, Mike McMullin wrote:

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 22:14 -0500, ka1ifq wrote:

...

On Saturday 21 January 2006 21:19, Kai Ponte wrote:

...

Oh, and how do I get KMail to auto-accept HTML emails? Though I despise them, some of my newsletters insist on sending in that format and I hate having to constantly click on two links to get the mail to display the way I want it. -- kai www.perfectreign.com

linux - genuine windows replacement part

Folder -> Prefer HTML to Plain Text

I don't know if this option is in Kmail, but in Evolution you can have it display HTML e-mails for those who are in your address book.

HTH

Sadly he's right, quite a few letters are HTML. I use a Yahoo account for that.

Mike

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:19:02 -0800, Kai Ponte wrote:

some of my newsletters insist on sending in that format and I hate having to constantly click on two links to get the mail to display the way I want it.

Hmm, I only need one rule for Mutt that dumps the Mail as normal text :) Philipp

Phil Burness wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:19, James Knott wrote:

...

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

What's the problem?

Surely if your religious you can appreciate other peoples beliefs, if your not religious then just ignore it

Where is the content in this thread that is representative of the subject line? -- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"

Phil Burness wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 18:53, Tony Alfrey wrote:

...

Phil Burness wrote:

...

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:19, James Knott wrote:

...

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

What's the problem?

Surely if your religious you can appreciate other peoples beliefs, if your not religious then just ignore it

Where is the content in this thread that is representative of the subject line?

-- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"

at the top of the thread

Scary! Now someone is organizing the release schedule of BS?!? Sandy -- List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com

Sandy Drobic wrote:

Scary! Now someone is organizing the release schedule of BS?!?

Yep, it happens every sunday morning.

James Knott wrote:

He's entitled to his beliefs. He is not entitled to inflict them on others. But you are?

-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

James Knott wrote:

Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

He's entitled to his beliefs. He is not entitled to inflict them on others.

But you are?

I'm not saying he can't have his beliefs or has to accept reality. I'm saying he has absolutely no right whatsoever, to inflict them on someone who wants no part of that nonsense.

By not tolerating others beliefs you are inflicting your non-belief on other! Good G-d get a life, it was a one line sig. --

On Friday 20 January 2006 19:02, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Sent over and over and over again. Each one an insult to truly thinking individuals. And it wasn't merely a statement of religious belief, but a clear advocation of theocracy, the most harmful manifestation of religion. Thus James' statement about it being forced upon us is true in more ways than one.

Humanity will not be free nor know peace until all this "Harry Potter for adults" nonsense is put behind us. Backwards, magical thinking, mythical creation stories, "more fertility is better" and baseless moral codes do not mix well with advanced technology.

Hear, Hear! Though I am still personally willing to tolerate (and ignore) messages that contain religious (and/or other nastiness like racial slurs) comments in their .sig. Mark

Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 18:32, Terry Eck wrote:

...

By not tolerating others beliefs you are inflicting your non-belief on other! Good G-d get a life, it was a one line sig.

Sent over and over and over again. Each one an insult to truly thinking individuals. And it wasn't merely a statement of religious belief, but a clear advocation of theocracy, the most harmful manifestation of religion. Thus James' statement about it being forced upon us is true in more ways than one.

I tried to stay out of this off-topic whining, but I got to thinking it nothing but an opportunity to vent. Schulz and Knott have both been around here long enough to know very well how to use filters and/or an email app that can be set to not display .sigs. So, to those whiny babies deficient in understanding the meaning and heritage of the U.S. Constitution and the American right to free speech and absence of right to not be offended by said free speech, here's my only in-thread on-list response: 1-U.S. Congressional sessions since their genesis have begun with prayer to the God of the Bible 2-U.S. Supreme Court sessions since their genesis have begun with prayer to the God of the Bible 3-The Bible is the most popular book of all time 4-Suggested reading: "Original Intent" by David Barton ISBN 1-932225-26-9, including its contained copies of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution 5-The Northwest Ordinance http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html 6-The original consitutions of the original 13 colonies 7-The pilgrims left England not to escape religion, but to escape government dictated religion 8-A brand new web page (still in progress) for said thinkers to think about: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/deathmatrix.html -- "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Psalm 33:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 19:52, Felix Miata wrote:

...

... "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Psalm 33:12 NIV

Warlike and dangerous is any nation that believes it's doing god's will.

RRS

That is also a valid sig. Nothing wrong with that opinion, of course, it somewhat matches mine. Jim

Felix Miata wrote:

I tried to stay out of this off-topic whining, but I got to thinking it nothing but an opportunity to vent. Schulz and Knott have both been around here long enough to know very well how to use filters and/or an email app that can be set to not display .sigs. So, to those whiny babies deficient in understanding the meaning and heritage of the U.S. Constitution and the American right to free speech and absence of right to not be offended by said free speech, here's my only in-thread on-list response:

An you have been around long enough to know that such comments are off topic in a Linux list.

1-U.S. Congressional sessions since their genesis have begun with prayer to the God of the Bible 2-U.S. Supreme Court sessions since their genesis have begun with prayer to the God of the Bible 3-The Bible is the most popular book of all time 4-Suggested reading: "Original Intent" by David Barton ISBN 1-932225-26-9, including its contained copies of the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution 5-The Northwest Ordinance http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html 6-The original consitutions of the original 13 colonies 7-The pilgrims left England not to escape religion, but to escape government dictated religion 8-A brand new web page (still in progress) for said thinkers to think about: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/deathmatrix.html

And religious freedom includes freedom *FROM* religion. If I ever found myself involved in a court case that started with a prayer, I'd start screaming. This is a Linux list, not a bible thumper list. Your comments are just as offensive to me as derogatory racial or sexual comments are to me and many others. The fact that you may not consider them to be offensive, does not give you the right to impose them on others any more that a racist or sexist has the right to impose his comments on others. One thing that many people forget, is that along with rights, go responsibilities. I'm sure if I chose, I could come up with some pretty offensive comments about you or others. However, out of common deceny, I will not do so. I have made it quite plain that religious comments are offensive to me as have others. I am not saying you can't have your beliefs. I am saying they are off topic and not welcome here.

On 1/21/06, James Knott wrote:

And religious freedom includes freedom *FROM* religion.

If I ever found myself involved in a court case that started with a prayer, I'd start screaming.

who cares what you would do?

This is a Linux list, not a bible thumper list. Your comments are just

yes, it is ... which is why these POSTS (as opposed to sigs) are so much freaking dross

as offensive to me as derogatory racial or sexual comments are to me and many others. The fact that you may not consider them to be offensive, does not give you the right to impose them on others any more that a racist or sexist has the right to impose his comments on others. One thing that many people forget, is that along with rights, go responsibilities.

I'm an atheist. But you "thumpers" of your own belief system just give a bad name to those of us who honestly try to struggle with and for the truth.

I'm sure if I chose, I could come up with some pretty offensive comments about you or others. However, out of common deceny, I will not do so.

I have made it quite plain that religious comments are offensive to me as have others. I am not saying you can't have your beliefs. I am saying they are off topic and not welcome here.

now please you offensive slob ... shut up. Please. Put whatever you will in a sig line, and post whatever is helpful or pose whatever linux questions you want, but I am sick of hearing your self-righteousness. I will now filter any post from you to the oblivion you so obviously thrive in. P

Let me settle this. I believe in Frisbeeism. When I die my soul will go to the roof and get stuck there. I don't know what happens to the rest of you, but I think it involves being thrown and chewed by a dog. There, I've said it. Please ... nothing more on this subject. Jim

By not tolerating others beliefs you are inflicting your non-belief on other! Good G-d get a life, it was a one line sig.

You want sig guidelines? Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/M/McQuary-limit.html - nothing there about content, merely about size. So, I guess size really does matter... -- James Ogley james@usr-local-bin.org Packages for SUSE: http://usr-local-bin.org/rpms Make Poverty History: http://makepovertyhistory.org

I'm not saying he can't have such beliefs. Perhaps not directly, but your objections are worded to imply that. I am saying he has no right to inflict such beliefs on the members of this forum, particularly since he has been informed that such things are offensive to others. You have also been informed that your posts objecting are offensive to others, but you continue (such objections would have been better aired in private mail). His was a sig, yours a post. Think seriously who is

If he wants to believe in fairy tales, that's entirely his business. Again, your opinion. Can't you accept that is your opinion, which you are free to believe, as is Felix to believe as HE chooses, not you. However, he can do so elsewhere. By what authority do you threaten so. No one is forcing his beliefs on you, James, but you ARE trying to force yours on him. That is the

James Knott wrote: truly inflicting here. It is your interpretation that a signature of any sort is 'inflicting', but it is only that, your interpretation. Though there may be others, maybe many, who share that view, there are also others, probably many, who do not. Can't you accept that? His signature was much less threatening than your objections, and his signature does NOT ask, coerce, or inflict anything on you, whereas your posts are. You take the position he cannot have his choice of signatures, because it offends you, saying his freedoms are limited by what YOU decide. That is "inflicting" of a much more dangerous level than a sig ever was. problem. And to say he cannot do that here assumes more authority than I believe you have here (oh why did Christopher leave :-( ). Can we not accept that Felix (and anyone else) can choose their own signature- free of censure, and if it offends you, filter him out or just do not read his signature? If Linux users cannot accept the freedom of choice, then I (MY OPINION HERE) think they are using the wrong OS (or maybe I am). This thread is a blight in the archives. -- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

On Friday 20 January 2006 9:17 pm, James Knott wrote:

Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

He's entitled to his beliefs. He is not entitled to inflict them on others.

But you are?

I'm not saying he can't have his beliefs or has to accept reality. I'm saying he has absolutely no right whatsoever, to inflict them on someone who wants no part of that nonsense.

Can you guys do me a huge favor and just shut up? Take this OFF the list and complain about how you have no hope or faith in anything and don't want to hear about other people's belief because of your lack there of. You're offended somehow by that and I'm VERY offended by you calling it BS and whatever else you've said against it, therefore, we have reached an impasse, shut up, or take it off list. -Allen

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:27 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 19:13, Allen wrote:

...

....

Can you guys do me a huge favor and just shut up? Take this OFF the list and complain about how you have no hope or faith in anything and don't want to hear about other people's belief because of your lack there of.

You're offended somehow by that and I'm VERY offended by you calling it BS and whatever else you've said against it, therefore, we have reached an impasse, shut up, or take it off list.

Because your offense is more significant and more deserving of being respected than that of those who don't agree with you?

I didn't say that. I'm the one who hasn't attacked ANYONE for THEIR lack of belief. I said I was offended, as he was somehow offended, and to shut up.

I'm VERY, VERY offended. OK?

...

-Allen

RRS

On Saturday 21 January 2006 11:41 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:

On Saturday 21 January 2006 07:45, Allen wrote:

...

On Friday 20 January 2006 11:27 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

...

You're offended somehow by that and I'm VERY offended by you calling it BS and whatever else you've said against it, therefore, we have reached an impasse, shut up, or take it off list.

THAT was what I said.... You somehow confused this....

...

...

Because your offense is more significant and more deserving of being respected than that of those who don't agree with you?

I didn't say that. I'm the one who hasn't attacked ANYONE for THEIR lack of belief. I said I was offended, as he was somehow offended, and to shut up.

I then replied again here trying to make someone understand I NEVER said that. Of course it doesn't matter because they are now in mob mode which lowers the IQ. And now I bet some idiot is going to reply saying I'm "attacking their intelligence" I'm not but it doesn't matter what I ACTUALLY say, it just gets twisted around.

I didn't say it was "BS," someone else said that. And nothing I said was an attack of any sort. As usual, the attacking comes from the religious, who want their beliefs cast into law. And to tell me to "shut up" is just hypocritical. And hypocrisy is a prime hallmark of the religious.

I didn't tell YOU to shut up, I told EVERYONE to shut up or take it OFF LIST. And I didn't say YOU said it was BS, I read the post that had that in and told THEM it offended ME that they said that. Why are you and the other people taking what I said in a reply, which had THAT post in it, as me pointing at you when I am NOT doing that? If I didn't have your text in my reply, it wasn't at YOU. And reading what you have quoted.... I didn't even accuse you of saying you said that, so where did that come from exactly? Assumptions? Not reading? And being someone who believes in God, I haven't attacked ANYONE, nor have I said anyone was stupid. Do me a favor, READ what I actually said and not what someone thinks I've said <--- this isn't aimed at just you or you in particular. But damn man, this is the... Third message to me NOT including the messages sent to me OFF list telling me I said something I never said. And how the hell you got it in your head that my offense was somehow more important than yours is beyond me. I never said that I told everyone to shut up and take it off list because it has nothing to do with this and all started because someone said they were offended by "BS" then it sprung into a bunch of people replying "Yea it's stupid" or whatever they said.. I don't even know why I'm replying tot his again, some idiot is going to not read it, reply to something I didn't say and use it against me.

RRS

Can this die now? I have no idea how Faith has offended anyone, but I'm quite offended by that person calling it BS. If he has no right to do that or say that, then you people have no right saying your side of it. It's both or nothing. And before you reply to that, READ what it actually says.

James Knott wrote:

Exaclty. Get rid of the religion and get rid of the complaints. If you allow the religion you also have to allow the complaints. What's it going to be?

Put your complaint in a one line signature and that would be OK! -- signature delete so as not to offend...

On Sunday 22 January 2006 05:42, Bryan S. Tyson wrote:

On Saturday 21 January 2006 7:38 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

Get rid of the religion and get rid of the complaints.  If you allow the religion you also have to allow the complaints.  What's it going to be?

Drop it man - let's get back to Linux

**************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer

Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net **************************************** Pretty poly

-- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM

T., On Monday 23 January 2006 01:57, T. Ribbrock wrote:

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:41:28AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: [...]

...

As usual, the attacking comes from the religious, who want their beliefs cast into law. And to tell me to "shut up" is just hypocritical. And hypocrisy is a prime hallmark of the religious.

This statement is just as unreflected and offensive as "all $CHOOSE_NATION are idiots". Just like with all groups, "religious" people are not one homogenous group. Not all are hypocrits, not all want to force their believe into law (in fact, the majority of religious people I know *doesn't*). Yet, you choose to tar all with the same brush. Now, *that's* hypocritical.

I said "prime hallmark of," not "all are."

Thomas

RRS

T., On Monday 23 January 2006 01:57, T. Ribbrock wrote:

On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:41:28AM -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: [...]

...

As usual, the attacking comes from the religious, who want their beliefs cast into law. And to tell me to "shut up" is just hypocritical. And hypocrisy is a prime hallmark of the religious.

This statement is just as unreflected and offensive as "all $CHOOSE_NATION are idiots". Just like with all groups, "religious" people are not one homogenous group. Not all are hypocrits, not all want to force their believe into law (in fact, the majority of religious people I know *doesn't*). Yet, you choose to tar all with the same brush. Now, *that's* hypocritical.

How does your accusation of overgeneralization equate to hypocrisy?

Cheerio,

What does this mean?

Thomas

RRS

T., On Monday 23 January 2006 07:44, T. Ribbrock wrote:

...

...

How does your accusation of overgeneralization equate to hypocrisy?

Well, on the one hand going on about "Humanity will not be free [under certain circumstances]", thus clearly advocating humanity/freedom (which is a noble thing to do), yet using sweeping statements and failing to recognise the individual differences just doesn't chime for me. Did I misinterpret you?

I don't know, but deistic religions are an immense drag on human progress, and an impediment to justice and freedom, and have been throughout our history and probably our prehistory as well. It is eminently reasonable to conclude that they will continue to be so in the future. I have not been hypocritical.

... Cheerio,

Thomas

RRS

On Monday 23 January 2006 13:20, Peter Nikolic wrote: [...]

When man does away with religon completely we may get somewhere in the universe instead of bieng crippled by some rather sad idealism that ther is a higher/ superior power out there that made everything item it'sa all a load of cobblers and the other thing that isd also cobblers is the idea that we are the only inteligent life that exists period whoever believs that one need shootinh now .

Pete .

--

That's an interesting point Peter, intelligent life. Far as I know, they're still searching for intelligent life on earth too! ;o) regards, Lee

On Monday 23 January 2006 23:50, Peter Nikolic wrote:

On Monday 23 January 2006 19:50, BandiPat wrote:

...

On Monday 23 January 2006 13:20, Peter Nikolic wrote: [...]

...

When man does away with religon completely we may get somewhere in the universe instead of bieng crippled by some rather sad idealism that ther is a higher/ superior power out there that made everything item it'sa all a load of cobblers and the other thing that isd also cobblers is the idea that we are the only inteligent life that exists period whoever believs that one need shootinh now .

Pete .

--

That's an interesting point Peter, intelligent life. Far as I know, they're still searching for intelligent life on earth too! ;o)

regards, Lee

Ouch ! ..

Pete .

Hummm note to ones self watch the triping it am gettin dam bad i dont know What the hell am happenin. Pete again. -- The Labour party has changed there emblem from a rose to a condom as it more accuratley reflects the governments political stance. A condom allows for inflation halts production destroys the next gereration, protects a bunch of pricks, and givesyou a sense of security while you are actually bieng fucked from GSM

Yo, Tribey, On Monday 23 January 2006 15:57, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

I have not been hypocritical.

When you accuse others of doing what you are yourself doing, I believe hypocritical is an accurate description.

I deal in facts and science. Religion is the antithesis. How can all the world's religions be in any way valid, when they all claim truth yet are utterly inconsistent with one another. If you want to call me names because I refuse to engage in the foolishness called faith, then call me an atheist. I have no religion. I've heard this inane argument many times before. The religious are so steeped in their self-created world of myth that they cannot accept that there are people who do not subscribe to a religion. Science is in no way a religion. It has no dogma. Things are only held to be true until a better, more all-encompassing or more accurate understanding supplants the older knowledge. Religion is dogma-laden and cannot grow beyond itself. If science operated that way, we'd not have anything like the technology that is conveying my words to you now.

-- Joe Morris

Randall Schulz -- Did you hear? Pascal is in hell. It's a sin to gamble.

Yo, Tribey,

On Monday 23 January 2006 15:57, Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

...

I have not been hypocritical.

When you accuse others of doing what you are yourself doing, I believe hypocritical is an accurate description.

I deal in facts and science. Religion is the antithesis. How can all the world's religions be in any way valid, when they all claim truth yet are utterly inconsistent with one another.

If you want to call me names because I refuse to engage in the foolishness called faith, then call me an atheist.

I have no religion. I've heard this inane argument many times before. The religious are so steeped in their self-created world of myth that they cannot accept that there are people who do not subscribe to a religion.

Science is in no way a religion. It has no dogma. Things are only held to be true until a better, more all-encompassing or more accurate understanding supplants the older knowledge.

Religion is dogma-laden and cannot grow beyond itself. If science operated that way, we'd not have anything like the technology that is conveying my words to you now.

...

-- Joe Morris

Randall Schulz -- Did you hear? Pascal is in hell. It's a sin to gamble. Yo, Randal, There is plenty of uncertainty in science. We have *many* theories (not facts!) to explain some of the most basic things in nature and occasionally an experiment gives credence to one over the others, thus creating a new advance and a new dogma in that discipline, with nothing more than a few scant bits of evidence. If that's not uncertainty, please enlighten me as to what is. Also, please don't forget "the uncertainty principle", used extensively in the "upper" echelons of science and explicitely stating the inability of human science to go beyond certain boundaries with certainty and no, that is not a play on words... One might even say that there is a lot of religion in science, many of the top scientists spend their life trying to prove their basic beliefs... My own personal take is that the true GOD willed the big bang and all the science in all the universes of the universe, and, just to piss off all the "intelligent design" fanatics, GOD willed the theory of evolution on our tiny, insignificant corner of the universe and probably on quite a few other

On Monday 23 January 2006 16:54, Randall R Schulz wrote: planets, almost as insignificant as ours. The true GOD is infinitely more infinite than organized religions would have you believe, their basic purpose is self preservation through people control, so they abuse the scriptures, make GOD in the image of man and use fear as their basic tool. True religion and true faith in the real GOD is much more abstract than any organized religion can ever offer to mankind. One can only hope that one day this truth travels throughout our world and catches root. If this happens, then Allah, Jesus, God, Buddah etc all become one essense of one mind of one GOD and....peace breaks out.... Do you think that the politicians and the priests will ever allow a chance for that to happen? Dimitris

On Monday 23 January 2006 9:54 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:

I have no religion. I've heard this inane argument many times before. The religious are so steeped in their self-created world of myth that they cannot accept that there are people who do not subscribe to a religion.

Everyone stopped listening about 50 posts ago **************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ****************************************

On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 22:13 -0500, Allen wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 9:17 pm, James Knott wrote:

...

Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

He's entitled to his beliefs. He is not entitled to inflict them on others.

But you are?

I'm not saying he can't have his beliefs or has to accept reality. I'm saying he has absolutely no right whatsoever, to inflict them on someone who wants no part of that nonsense.

Can you guys do me a huge favor and just shut up? Take this OFF the list and complain about how you have no hope or faith in anything and don't want to hear about other people's belief because of your lack there of.

You're offended somehow by that and I'm VERY offended by you calling it BS and whatever else you've said against it, therefore, we have reached an impasse, shut up, or take it off list.

-Allen

What, exactly, does this thread have to do with SuSE Linux? No one care that your politically correct sensibilities were offended by someone else's belief and this is not the place to discuss it. John

* James Knott [01-21-06 18:39]:

So what's it going to be?

It's going to be time to become adults. Very simple. If it's not a personal or ethnic ATTACK, ignore it. Else, we are a linux community, use linux; filter the content or individuals you wish not to see to /dev/null. Then there is NO REASON for this discussion on this/the/suse list. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

James Knott wrote:

If Felix or others are entitled to post such things, then I and others are entitled to complain about them.

So what's it going to be?

Put your disbelief/distain in a one line signature like Felix did about his belief. -- SUSE LINUX 10.0 (i586) -- 2.6.13-15.7-default -- Sat 01/21/06 6:45pm up 6 days 0:54, 3 users, load average: 0.26, 0.18, 0.16

Personally if I wanted to be a 'net Nazi I would shout: SIG HELL! :) -- Jim Hatridge Linux User #88484 ------------------------------------------------------ WartHog Bulletin Info about new German Stamps http://www.fuzzybunnymilitia.org/~hatridge/bulletin/index.php Viel Feind -- Viel Ehr' Anti-US Propaganda stamp collection http://www.fuzzybunnymilitia.org/~hatridge/collection/index.php

On Monday 23 January 2006 6:16 am, Mike McMullin wrote:

On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 21:21 +0100, James Hatridge wrote:

...

Personally if I wanted to be a 'net Nazi I would shout:

SIG HELL!

:)

I thought it was funny. Specially if you say hell in German it should sound more like "Hale"... That was funny. Even though mein Opa fought against him in WW2.

:)

On Sunday 22 January 2006 9:16 pm, James Knott wrote:

Allen wrote:

...

Would you quit sending me fucking mail OFF LIST? It's not like I don't read ti here too dumb ass. I'd watch my mouth but since no one cares who's offended anymore why bother?

That one I sent you off list was accidental, as I sent it before changing the address to the list. You can check the time to verify that the one sent to you was a minute or two before the list copy. I have never made a habit of sending list mail to individuals, though on occasion, I have failed to change the address.

I'll let it slide if you and me can prmise to stop this thread here and now. -Allen In at least somewhat on topic news: I logged in over SSH to 3 of my machines here and updated all of them without moving. Let me see a Windows boy try that one.

On Sunday 22 January 2006 10:37, James Knott wrote:

If Felix or others are entitled to post such things, then I and others are entitled to complain about them.

So what's it going to be?

No you are NOT. People are entitled to identify and define themselves anway that they like IN THEIR SIGNATURE. That is their business only the same as we have to put up with commercial entreaties from people choose free mail service etc If it is in the body of a list message then it is inappropriate but only bigots could find offense with a persons private signature. -- Australians, English and Americans, Come join your Government in the Coalition of the Damned and learn to murder and pillage all those who think different to you! I have laboured mightily for millenia to bring this about, JOIN ME! Beelzebub Book of Revenge 13:4 regards, andrew

On Wednesday 25 January 2006 9:35 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:

...

People are entitled to identify and define themselves anway that they like IN THEIR SIGNATURE. That is their business only the same as we have to put up with commercial entreaties from people choose free mail service etc If it is in the body of a list message then it is inappropriate but only bigots could find offense with a persons private signature.

Mere sophistry.

No one is interested and no one cares Drop it **************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ****************************************

James Knott wrote:

Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

James Knott wrote:

...

He is not entitled to inflict them on others.

But you are? I'm saying he has absolutely no right whatsoever, to inflict them on someone who wants no part of that nonsense. My point exactly. You say HE has no right to "inflict" his signature's message on you, but you in so saying ARE saying YOU have the right to "inflict" your desires on him. Either you both have the right, or neither.

-- Joe Morris Registered Linux user 231871

On Saturday 21 January 2006 01:34, Albert wrote:

One is offended by religion, the other one by calling his/her religion BS. ... This is a SuSE list. This is not a political or religious or philosophical list. Keep it to the topic (i.e. discussions related to SuSE Linux).

Amen, Brother! I couldn't have said it better myself! (ducking swiftly) - Carl

* Lester Caine [01-21-06 03:10]:

So returning to the subject slightly - do any of the eMail packages actually allow you to select 'sig' on a folder by folder basis. I use Moz1.7 myself and know that this is set globally for the account, but perhaps we should be pressing for more flexibility, so that sig's that are appropriate to the target audience can actually be managed.

Mutt has this capability.

( A Reply button that uses the list address rather than a personal one would be useful as well, along with selecting compose on a folder that is mark as an eMail list using automatically using that list address as well - selecting an appropriate sig would dovetail in with that - then we can work how we want to work rather than being further annoyed by what other people dictate :) )

Discussed MANY time on this list and explained in the help reply from the list sig address and the welcome emai you received when subscribing (You did read it?). And the email clients mutt and kmail both have the capability of recognizing the presence of a list address and directly replying to that address. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

* Lester Caine [01-21-06 13:01]:

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

...

Discussed MANY time on this list and explained in the help reply from the list sig address and the welcome emai you received when subscribing (You did read it?). And the email clients mutt and kmail both have the capability of recognizing the presence of a list address and directly replying to that address.

But unfortunately not available for windows as well - I'm still stuck having to keep customers happy while running Linux in parallel :(

but mutt is available on windoz via cygwin and works well.

At least some of my council customers ARE now willing to at least look at Linux servers ;) SO perhaps in a few years I can scrap windows altogether :)

a commendable target. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Saturday 2006-01-21 at 11:55 -0500, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

* Lester Caine [01-21-06 03:10]:

...

So returning to the subject slightly - do any of the eMail packages actually allow you to select 'sig' on a folder by folder basis. I use Moz1.7 myself and know that this is set globally for the account, but perhaps we should be pressing for more flexibility, so that sig's that are appropriate to the target audience can actually be managed.

Mutt has this capability.

And Pine ;-)

...

( A Reply button that uses the list address rather than a personal one would be useful as well, along with selecting compose on a folder that is mark as an eMail list using automatically using that list address as well - selecting an appropriate sig would dovetail in with that - then we can work how we want to work rather than being further annoyed by what other people dictate :) )

Discussed MANY time on this list and explained in the help reply from the list sig address and the welcome emai you received when subscribing (You did read it?). And the email clients mutt and kmail both have the capability of recognizing the presence of a list address and directly replying to that address.

I understand he refers to Mozilla capabilities, not to list policies. It is a long missing and wanted feature in Mozilla. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFD0utdtTMYHG2NR9URAnL5AKCS5iIwo29st+yRrLtulg7FIZaI3wCfUbq9 Db/MQVQGJB8i+YtzhadFOsY= =DdNX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I don't honestly have much of a problem with people's sig files. My own is perhaps a little too long - I will amend it, I promise. If there is one that upsets me a little I choose to simply ignore it. It's an option with whatever OS one happens to be using ;-))) However, perhaps we could all start to look at ever expanding subject lines..... take this one as an example.

On Saturday 21 January 2006 01:34, Albert wrote:

Joe Morris (NTM) wrote:

...

My point exactly. You say HE has no right to "inflict" his signature's message on you, but you in so saying ARE saying YOU have the right to "inflict" your desires on him. Either you both have the right, or neither.

One is offended by religion, the other one by calling his/her religion BS.

At the end of the day with freedom comes responsibility. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you can say what you want.

You have the responsibility to think of what you are saying to who you are saying it to.

I live in a country where we have freedom of speech, but where human rights are more important than freedom of speech. My human right not to be offended by your believes, racial prejudice and/or political status is much more important than your human right to make your believes, racial prejudice and/or political status public.

IF you believe we all have a "right to not be offended" by others then nobody else has a right to say or do anything. I find that offensive. What country are you in, so I can press charges? There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. You merely have the same, equal right as everyone else to express yourself. If someone else's expression offends you then you can say you're offended.

On Saturday 21 January 2006 7:00 pm, James Knott wrote:

I have never said he can't have his beliefs.  I just don't want to read about them here, in a Linux forum.

Drop it man - let's get back to Linux **************************************** Powered by Mepis Linux 3.3.1 KDE 3.3.2 KMail 1.7.2 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ****************************************

Mark A. Taff wrote:

On Friday 20 January 2006 03:19, James Knott wrote:

...

Felix Miata wrote:

Hey Felix. I realize you contribute a lot to the group, but would you please keep the religious BS to yourself. Many of us find it offensive.

While I do find religious notions to be BS and somewhat offensive, and wholly inappropriate for the body of a message or a topic of discussion for this list, I will not begrudge someone who has a religious quote in their .sig.

To do so strikes me as making someone fake being non-religious just to be part of this group. How would everyone feel if the religious people wanted to coerce us to put religious sayings in our .sigs just so we could be a part of the group?

I understand the inherent conflict between intellect and religion, but nothing in that conflict dictates I must treat religious people poorly, other than not buying their position on creation, existence of god, etc.

Mark

Do you feel coerced when you see a religious message in a note sent by e-mail through a listserv? If someone told me that Jesus wants me to use Word Perfect, I would take that as a failed endorsement, and nothing more. The person sending the religious message may have your interests at heart, and it does not matter that your perception of your interests are different in evaluating the appropriateness of the missive. There is no "inherent conflict" between intellect and religion. Indeed, the intellectual activity among respected thinkers with respect to religious doctrine and textual interpretation is not only sizable but also admirable. The intellect, after all, is not limited to matters of "fact" or "science". It is arrogant nonsense to assert that the only intellectual activity of any value relates to the pursuit of science. You do not (cannot) know whether the intellectual effort in matters religious have anything to do with truth. Indeed, it is not all that clear that what science describes as the world has a 1:1 correspondence with what the world is "really"like. So stuff your arrogance and, when you are done, calm down! -- Best regards, Dennis J. Tuchler University City, Missouri 63130 USA

-----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Taff [mailto:marktaff@comcast.net] Sent: 20 January 2006 23:35 To: suse-linux-e@suse.com Subject: SPAM: Re: [SLE] Schedule of releases Math is not science, yet clearly it is rational, hence intellectual. There are other such cases, but religion is not among them. Just my 2 cents but I disagree; literature and art are often irrational and subjective but are clearly intellectual. Matthew