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