|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Well that's very good of you to apologise, thank you. (And I couldn't quite believe Chris would just disable sigs. More like he would close my account.  )
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: ... in the old days ... 2006/2007 ...
Great, now I really feel old! 
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, tempus fugit.
They were good days though, the original SB, it was a fun place.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I was just saying that in the old days CP was much rowdier than it is today, and that if you found my sig so shocking then if yo9u were here in 2006/2007 you would have been mortified!
Yes, and CP survived and thrived, just as other groups always survive and thrive through such things. For many members, a little antagonism and controversy between members is the making of the group.
I have yet to witness a group survive an attack of "the Blue Meanies", though.
Such collapses always start with a minor group forcing their wishes on other members of the group by abusing one small rule, and end with... Well, they end with everyone of value upping pegs and moving on.
Here, we have religious factions taking the Blue Meanie role. You'd think the world had had enough of religions trying to force their ways on everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
I quite agree. Vivre le difference! as they say in my adopted country, and as the Dutch are also very good at observing.
It wold be a sad and sterile place if we all had to toe the middle line, the world AND CP.
|
|
|
|
|
I trust that if the "compassionately common sense" view of many CodeProject Members, and CodeProject staff, is that any statement is an egregious violation of the pro-social norms of the context in which it is placed: the content should be removed, and the poster warned it is inappropriate.
If the poster continues to post the same kind of content, then I think the poster should be banned.
I am much more concerned about the daily abuse I witness on QA, than I am about what goes down in the Lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I am much more concerned about the daily abuse I witness on QA, than I am about what goes down in the Lounge.
Now, that is certainly something I agree with.
|
|
|
|
|
What sort of abuse, people name calling? 
|
|
|
|
|
Gratuitous deletion of questions and answers.
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
|
|
|
|
|
First: I haven't read the whole thread so if I'm repeating something then I'm sorry.
As to the discussion I have a few remarks.
The first (and probably the most important one) is something that has been said but I'd like to repeat it
As Richard Deeming says in this post[^]
"On this site, your word is law".
I can't agree more.
Further, your reply to him is one of the reasons I like CP so much.
As to this particular case, there are several ways to look at this.
- He posted a link to a possibly inflammatory site, but the way he posted it somewhat negotiates this (not completely tho)
He didn't just make it a "click here" link, but the text explained what the link was about so everyone could decide for them self if they are interested in something like that or not
- strangely enough the previous point is probably what caused all the commotion, because of it there was a political message in the lounge (several cause it was in his signature). This being said I still prefer the way he posted it than the 'click here' way.
- to me posting a link to a petition that offends me (wouldn't know what petition that would be cause I don't get offended that easy) isn't offensive (the posting of the link). This person is entitled to his / her opinion, and can so voice this, and in the end that's all it is, a opinion from this one person.
The way he posted it (not a 'click here' link) allowed me to just ignore it (k I can ignore the 'click here' link as well but ...).
As to this discussion in general:
This is a community of millions from all over the world.
It's simply impossible to please all off them. For example: I have absolutely no interest in the CCC and the one about the movies, so I just ignore them.
It's possible that this post offends someone (I wouldn't know why but...).
We'd all be much better off if people just ignored the things they didn't like and moved on but well this is the internet so...
In short it all comes down to this:
This is your site, you make the rules, when someone breaks those rules you are entitled to take action (or no action). What that action is, is again up to you, the community can help you and maybe advice you but in the end it is your decision.
In this case it seems it's very clear. Lounge = No politics. The link (and even the text) where about politics so a violation of the rules.
And your action is (in my opinion) the best you could take (ask to remove the signature).
In my opinion it doesn't matter if the link is in a post or in the signature, especially not since we can always edit the signature on every post we make. (If we edit it on a new post, is that edit then saved or is it just for this one post? If only for this one post than there is no excuse to not follow the lounge rules)
K this post got a lot longer than intended so I'll stop here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertising = spam
"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
