|
If you had removed the sig when recognising that it makes problems we would not have these discussions. Insisting is often not the best choice.
I will now follow my own advice and back out from this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
I saw too much support from the community, that's why I didn't remove it.
Whoever runs the site, without members, without the community, CP wouldn't exist, so its always the opinion of the majority that should be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - the "12 people voted for me and that makes a majority" argument again.
Just to summarise for those who are still reading:
1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
2. Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
3. Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
Why do you even have to say that? Do you really think I am looking for attention?
You are miles out. Really. I am surprised.
Chris Maunder wrote: Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
Which is what I said.
Chris Maunder wrote: Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
I never claimed they did. What I did say, as many others did, is that a sig is not a post and thus shouldn't be subjected to the same rules.
But anyway, I am bored with this. I have changed my sig so when you get it working again no one need have their tiny little world disturbed by a few words.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Which is what I said
You said "it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris" and "The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed"
Freedom of speech, yes. And everyone has that.
Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that.
Please stick to the discussion (though I know you won't) and have another crack at this simple question:
Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that
I didn't claim that. I merely stated what others have said, the posts in the lounge about politics go un noticed, it is only when it contains a sensitive subject that some people start getting upset, as has been stated by others here.
Chris Maunder wrote: keep discussions in the appropriate
As I have always done. Show me where I have discussed Israel in the lounge? Or any politics for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Or any politics for that matter
So this whole thing boils down to you taking the view that a signature is not part of a message or discussion. That what you include in your sig is essentially invisible, inviolate and not subject to posting guidelines.
Was not me, guv'nor, 'twas my sig, the little rascal. Never know what he'll get up too next!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think, including you since you think PhilLenoirs sig is OK, yet you have asked Martin (the Australian I think he is) to moderate his language in the lounge.
Clearly its a case of double standards aimed at people who criticise criticise Israel, as this CP member also attests: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986823/Re-Can-someone-upvote-this.aspx[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I and others think
It's certainly taken a long time to get here. So:
Your sig is part of your signature. Include religion or politics in your sig and I consider it as including the content in your message. At that point I'll judge whether your trying to incite a conversation on religion or politics in a given forum and will take the appropriate action.
This isn't up for debate. This is how I will run my forum.
a) My discussion on language included a bunch of details you've conveniently elided. Swear words are obfuscated, most public newspapers are fine with posting obfuscated swear words, so from the point of view of propriety, I have no problem.
b) Swear words are words. They aren't discussions on religion and politics that take over the Lounge and make it a place where the majority of developers no longer want to visit due to it being hijacked by those wanting to use it as a soapbox. That is the reason for the ban on religion and politics in the lounge.
Two very different things.
|
|
|
|
|
And I have never discussed politics in the lounge, so you should be happy. 
|
|
|
|
|
This is starting to need a very big DON'T FEED THE TROLL
Every time you have said something, he has tried to turn around your words. It is not worth, he is not going to change the way he answers in this "conversation".
I have read the full thread so far and (for me) it can be resumed to:
do
{
if message.contains (respect)
play_the_card_of (it was not so bad)
else if message.contains (rules)
play_the_card_of (speech freedom)
else if message.contains (you are not getting the idea)
play_the_card_of (other people support me)
}
while (someone answers)
---------------------
About the original question asking for opinions:
I am one of the 99% who doesn't know who Matt is.
I am one of the 90% who doesn't care who Matt says.
For me signatures are a very tricky thema. To avoid all kind of "grey zones" boundaries to spam, abuse, bypassing guidelines and so on... I would just delete signatures or add a very simple and easy to understand rule for them... NO LINKS AT ALL, it doesn't matter if URL, a href, plain text or whatever format.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Was not me, guv'nor
LMAO! 
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, its about Israel. http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986990/Re-A-discussion-On-What-Constitutes-Abuse-And-What.aspx[^]
Some people just cant stand to have it criticised and will use any means at their disposal to crush criticism of it. Here, Nick has successfully convinced you that my posts are political. (At first you didn't, you thought his behaviour was wrong, and you 'had words with the nuker' to quote you. Clearly as part of that conversation he convinced you he was right.)
Its a sad world where we have to tread on eggshells because of events 70 years ago in Germany. Where such a shadow makes us sit back and see innocent children murdered.
Anyway, I am sure politics, morality and religion are not allowed to be discussed here so I will stop at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Providing a link to an anti-Jewish hate site is clearly political. We do not want have Arab-Israeli massacres at this web-site. We want everyone to feel comfortable.
I am a geek and came here to communicate with other geeks about software - not about politics. The value of the web-site is primarily not in the lounge but in the published articles.
I do not want to publish my political opinions here because I want people of other political persuasion to be comfortable here too discussing and sharing software.
Munchies_Matt has not published a single article here but was providing anti-Israel messages for several years. I do not think it is fair. If I noticed it before I would have raised the question earlier.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Polyak wrote: an anti-Jewish hate site
And now you really give yourself away. The site is about Israel complying with UN law pure and simple.
Your objection to my sig is not because its political, its because its anti Israeli extremism.
Nick Polyak wrote: The value of the web-site is primarily not in the lounge but in the published articles.
That is your opinion, me and many others think its prime value are the non technical discussion forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, is my new sig acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
No I do not think your signature acceptable. And the reasons I explained in http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4987207/Re-A-discussion-On-What-Constitutes-Abuse-And-What.aspx[^]:
Repeating them here:
Providing a link to an anti-Jewish hate site is clearly political. We do not want have Arab-Israeli massacres at this web-site. We want everyone to feel comfortable.
I am a geek and came here to communicate with other geeks about software - not about politics. The value of the web-site is primarily not in the lounge but in the published articles.
I do not want to publish my political opinions here because I want people of other political persuasion to be comfortable here too discussing and sharing software.
Munchies_Matt has not published a single article here but was providing anti-Israel messages for several years. I do not think it is fair. If I noticed it before I would have raised the question earlier.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Polyak wrote: anti-Jewish hate site
What a joke.
Nick Polyak wrote: anti-Israel messages
This is what you told Maunder is it? Why did you tell him its anti Israeli, and here say its anti Jewish? Did you think Chris would think you a fool for calling it anti jewish when it clearly isn't?
Well guess what...
(And in fact its not even anti Israel, its anti Israeli right wing; many Israelis think Israel should return to 67 borders too.)
The fact is you only objected because you disagree with the content of my sig, not the fact its political. Its obvious to us in the way you call it as anti semitic when it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not an Israeli and a supporter of the two state solution.
Your obsession with Israel, the fact that you put your political anti-Israel, anti-Jewish message in your signature (thus factoring it out of any discussion), the fact that you are not participating in any software forums or write any software articles makes me wonder if the only reason for your presence at this site is to spread anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Its anti Israel
And hence its political. That is what Mr. Maunder(And many others) stated before. Even now you,your self accept that its anti Israel.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
Well, specifically its anti Israeli right wing, many Israelis also want a return to 67 borders.
Anyway, of course its political. I never claimed it wasn't. The point is that signatures have been exempt from the rules in the past, for example swear words are allowed in signatures, but not in posts, in the lounge. Chris has actually stated this himself.
Also, is a signature a discussion? No it isn't. And its only political discussions that are not allowed.
Many other people have stated exactly the same sentiment, so I don't see what all the fuss is, especially when the original objector, Nick Polack, has been shown to be incorrect and to have made false assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feeling pretty embarrassed eh? You have made an utter fool of yourself and don't even have the good manners to apologise.
And you want me kicked off CP?
|
|
|
|
|
I had to admit that sigs has been disabled due to a bug.
I apologise for presuming that yours leads Chris to disable them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
