On Saturday 14 September 2002 01:17 pm, Florin Iucha wrote: > On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 06:37:59PM -0500, Joel Rosenberg wrote: > > On Friday 13 September 2002 05:30 pm, nassarsa at redconcepts.net wrote: > > > I understand that we all have our affiliations, and I have no problem > > > with mentioning them in sigs, but do we really need to make potentially > > > offensive political statements in our sigs? > > > > If either the consensus or the listmanager's ruling (or, of course, both) > > is that "potentially offensive political statements in ... sigs" is > > unacceptable on the TCLUG mailing list, I'm certainly willing to abide by > > that and unsubscribe, rather than get into a long or even a short > > discussion about what is and isn't offensive, politically, or otherwise; > > it's not my list, after all. Playing with sigrot to adjust for others' > > sensitivities actually sounds like a lot of fun, but I think it's beyond > > my limited skills. > > > > Failing that -- or even not failing that -- I'd prefer to discuss > > political issues, and offense taken to political comments in sigs, other > > than on this particular mailing list. YMMV. > > I respect your right to free speech and I will strongly defend it even > though I do not agree with what you say. Thank you. > > But your signatures are certainly offensive to some people (myself > included). I could ignore them but then I would look like I condone > them. That's one view, and I respect it, although objecting to everything one finds offensive would likely keep one very busy. Another view is that one isn't required to take issue with anything and everything one doesn't agree with -- that happens to be mine, and it does have the virtue of laziness and economy. I could answer to them with arguments and reason but I know I will > not change anybody's mind and you will not change anybody's mind so we > would just waste bandwith here discussing issues not related to Linux > or Twin Cities. > > It is pointless to have such arguments on this list. Feel free to set up > another mailing list and I will gladly raise your glove there. Ghu knows there's plenty of venues to participate in such discussions already, and the number is only likely to increase in the foreseeable future, for obvious reasons; I don't feel the next to add another mailing list to the heap. jr > > florin > > > On a more linux-related note, it is fairly easy to use procmail to filter > > on From: lines. Somebody who was to add a recipe like > > > > :0: > > > > * ^From:.*joelr at ellegon.com > > /dev/null > > > > to their .procmailrc would never actually see a message from me, although > > that wouldn't prevent it from being seen by others. Just as an example. > > (Is the lockfile really necessary? I dunno.) Which doesn't, of course, > > deal with the problem of quoted messages. I'm sure that there's a fairly > > simple recipe that could send all messages containing, say, the string > > "thuggeeisareligionofdeath" to the bit-bin as well, although I don't know > > it off the top of my head. I know that spamblocker does filter on > > content, as well as headers, so there's probably an easy way to do it. > > > > jr > > > > -- > > So you know what, Saddam? Go ahead. Yep, you heard us > > right. That was the green light, just like the one you > > thought you got from that Glaspie woman, only this time we > > mean it. Take Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia too. It would take > > you what, three days? Go ahead and butcher the Al Sabahs and > > the whole Saudi royal family. Have at it. Any dissent? We > > know you know how to handle it, just don't tell us about the > > details. Let Noam Chomsky worry about it. > > -- Claire Berlinksi, A > > Modest Proposal > > http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3881 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > > Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org > > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list -- "Violence only leads to more violence." This one is so stupid you usually have to be the president of an Ivy League university to say it. Here's the truth, which you know in your heads and hearts already: Ineffective, unfocused violence leads to more violence. Limp, panicky, half-measures lead to more violence. However, complete, fully-thought-through, professional, well-executed violence never leads to more violence because, you see, afterwards, the other guys are all dead. That's right, dead. Not "on trial," not "reeducated," not "nurtured back into the bosom of love." Dead. D-E--Well, you get the idea. -- Larry Miller ------------------------------------------------------------ http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com