|
I enjoy the openness and frankness too.
But let's get back to you: you signature is political and inflammatory. You're welcome to enjoy the openness and frankness of the Soapbox to push your agenda but again I ask that you don't use CodeProject in general to grind your axe.
This isn't about frankness and free speech. It's about appropriateness.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for you to respond to my comments about appropriateness and respect for the community.
I, too, enjoy open discussions. There's a way to do that in a way that let's other's enjoy the site, too.
It's not about you. It's about helping software developers.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: It's about helping software developers
The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed. It is in fact a small minority who don't, so perhaps you should ask that minority to respect the wishes of the wider community?
|
|
|
|
|
You have freedom of speech.
13 upvotes isn't a majority, especially since there isn't the option of downvoting.
Now: what about appropriateness? 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?
Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
13 upvotes is about as high as any post gets voted so clearly it shows a major agreement, which is also evident in the various discussions this has given rise to where there have been only I think one or two people agreeing with censorship, and all the rest saying my sig is OK.
Chris Maunder wrote: Do you feel you should respect the community
it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris.
Anyway, why do you find a request to uphold international law offensive? How about if the sig said "sign a petition to have Blair prosecuted for war crimes"? Would that be acceptable? (And be careful how you answer, I might just try it.  )
|
|
|
|
|
Where is this "censorship" when I'm asking you to keep political discussions out of the Lounge?
Munchies_Matt wrote: Would that be acceptable?
Absolutely not.
Anyway, and again: 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? Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I dot see a sig as discussion Chris.
You are perfectly happy to let people use swear words on their sigs, yet I have seen you ask people to control their language when they use swear words in posts in the lounge. Therefore clearly a post is NOT a sig and a sig is NOT a discussion.
Anyway, as I said, it is clear the community doesn't mind my sig, just one or two individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
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? Or does that not apply to you?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't discuss politics in the lounge Chris, but you do admit that swear words are allowed in sigs, yet not in lounge conversations. Why not apply the same logic to my sig?
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: it is clear the community want the sig to stay
That is bullshit and you know it, the community probably does not like any limitations imposed, not the content of your signature!
I upvoted you for the rail against the limitation, I would down vote you for your silly attempt to piss off the management. Just because you can does not mean you should.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: your silly attempt to piss off the management
That isn't my intention, and my sig has been like this for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
If he wants to make a poll out of it, those who disagree with him could oblige by flagging as abusive to generate down votes...
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the signature should be allowed to stay. As far as my memory goes, it has been there for a very very long time. It isn't illegal after all. It just calls for upholding a law that is recognized by the international community.
Chris Maunder wrote: This isn't about frankness and free speech.
Why does free speech always goes to the bin when it comes to a particular entity? I'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem if the petition called for supporting "israel".
|
|
|
|
|
I'm assuming you haven't been following the argument.
Shameel wrote: I'm sure it wouldn't have been a problem if the petition called for supporting "israel"
It would not be acceptable. That's politics and religion. We have asked politics and religion to be kept out of the Lounge. Talk about this as much as you want in the soapbox. Just keep it out of the lounge.
That's the start and finish of what this is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: remove your signature. It's blatantly political
I thought that's what the signature is for?!? I disagree with your position and think his signature should be allowed. But, it's your site so... your rules...
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
|
|
|
|
|
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote: I thought that's what the signature is for?
eh? A signature was once a signature: your name, your company, and maybe your job title and contact details. It was a feature that allowed you to post a message and include in your message (as part of the message) your sign-off and name in order to save typing.
Then it expanded to include a quote or two (such as yours) and then it morphed away into a space to make a statement.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I see what you're saying, but, haven't electronic "signatures" have always been like what you describe?
I agree that some signatures can certainly be controversial and/or impolite and maybe should be avoided.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Sometimes you don't get everything you wish for.
Santa wasn't good to you this past xmas? 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's not talk about it.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to post a solution to this question[^], but I keep getting the error message "An unexpected error occurred while attempting to create your new entry. Please try again later".
Looking at the edit history[^], this was originally posted in October 2013 as a completely unrelated question, and was edited two hours ago.
Is this an attempt to prevent people from answering really old questions? If so, the user should probably be warned that nobody will be able to answer their edited question.
If not, is it a bug, or is it just me?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, munchies_matt (zzebowa(at)hotmail.com) has asked me if I could beg on his behalf for his account to be re-enabled; apparently at least ten people consider his posts to be spam.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 3859673 wrote: apparently at least ten people consider his posts to be spam
I don't think its the case because now a days,name of those who reported his account gets displayed while in this case, it simply says unable to load member's information.
Looks like his account got kicked by newly implemented spam filters. I would say, wait for Admins to respond.
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly"- SoMad
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
