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. But your signatures are certainly offensive to some people (myself included). I could ignore them but then I would look like I condone them. 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. 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 > -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20020914/c67bc786/attachment.pgp