On 2014-04-19 16:30, Ted Byers wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:45 AM, Linda Walsh <> wrote:
jdebert wrote:
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.
I hate to enter this discussion, but I will, briefly. I happen to be a christian, and I don't feel attacked. I strongly believe in freedom of religion and speech. I acknowledge the right of atheists and agnostics to voice what they think of religion, same as any religion may say what they think of any other religion. I see it as criticism, under freedom of speech and religion, not personal attack. IMO, reacting to a quoted text in a signature should be addressed to the person that originally said that idea, not to the quoter. Even less if it is a random quote. Surely in the pool of random quotes there will be things that disgust many other groups. Are we going to enter endless discussions about all of those? Reacting strongly to such a signature draws even more attacks, igniting a discussion about religion, which is off-topic here. If a person reacts strongly in Internet, he must be prepared to even more strong reactions against his reaction. If that is his wish, fine, but please do it in the offtopic mail list, not here. A polite reaction might have been more useful. And yes, at least I suggested to take this to the project list instead, asking for change of the netiquette rules on signatures, so that they explicitly say what can be written there or not. As they currently are, a random signature generator is not in violation of the current rules. Maybe the rules should be modified, because it is not the first time we get similar brawls about signatures. Enough said :-/ -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)