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.
Admins are not bound by law to permit intolerant, offensive or other outrageous speech. ==== Um... Where is the law mentioned? Where is it said that admins are bound by law? Or that anyone was talking about admins?
When I say "the project", I mean the majority (or vocal minority, perhaps) that post here and make themselves known as regular members. The admin is not the project -- they may have final say so on what can and can't be done, but they probably want to interfere in children's squabbles about as much as change someone else's kids diapers. The discretion, and authority, yes. The obligation? Now you are the one dictating "rules" to the "admin[s]". They have no obligation to listen to what you consider to be their obligations. ;-)
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. And of course -- too many men throughout history -- women have been unreasonable and ill. The word 'hysteria' comes the Greek word for "uterus". In a similar way "dick" comes from slang for a male organ that is one degree less than a full blown asshole. Does that imply a male tendency to go overboard a bit on things -- seriously I want to KNOW RIGHT NOW!!!!.... (not to be hysterical or anything...)...(that was a rhetorical question)...
How do you want people to think of you? Your signature is a reflection of you and it is how people will see you.
If that's how people see me, then they won't. I don't have one. Too bad people don't see people for what they are saying... That would require too much constant thought... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org