the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations. God Bless, Wiliam Warren Faithwalk.org
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, William Warren wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
There have been much longer much more obnoxious .sig's on this list before, with no complaints. Go figure, let the anti-religious bigots rule. IMNSHO, the only valid reason for complaining about the .sig, was the more-than-4-lines length, but it's fairly obvious that that wasn't the (main) reason... -- Dominic J. Eidson ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If your life is a hard drive, "Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli Christ can be your backup. http://www.the-infinite.org/~dominic/
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, William Warren wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
There have been much longer much more obnoxious .sig's on this list before, with no complaints. Go figure, let the anti-religious bigots rule.
Boy, that appears called for... From what factual basis draw this rude conclusion?
Well as long as under God is kept out of your sig then the 9th circuit court should leave you alone! On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Dominic J. Eidson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, William Warren wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
There have been much longer much more obnoxious .sig's on this list before, with no complaints. Go figure, let the anti-religious bigots rule.
IMNSHO, the only valid reason for complaining about the .sig, was the more-than-4-lines length, but it's fairly obvious that that wasn't the (main) reason...
--On Wednesday, August 07, 2002 03:48:27 PM -0400 William Warren <hescominsoon@adelphia.net> wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
wow, you took heat for that .sig? *that* is obnoxious and self-indulging (and yes i meant to reply to this silly list). i should go re-read the nanog charter (or the internet charter i guess) and see where it says you can't have a .sig that talks about God (or the Bible, or whatever). -b
From RFC 1855, Netiquette Guidelines:
In order to ensure that people know who you are, be sure to include a line or two at the end of your message with contact information. You can create this file ahead of time and add it to the end of your messages. (Some mailers do this automatically.) In Internet parlance, this is known as a ".sig" or "signature" file. Your .sig file takes the place of your business card. (And you can have more than one to apply in different circumstances.) There's nothing here about content restrictions but it does say "a line or two." I believe the original objection in this thread was to the two line E-mail with a 10 line sig file. Not exactly "conservative in what you send ..." Bu then again with the poliferation of "enhanced E-mail clients" and net citizens sending 65K three-paragraphs-of-text E-mails with 50K animated GIF sigs and 10Kbackgrounds in HTML (done Yahoo! Mail lately?), maybe this is an antiquainted concept. :( Remember only about 5% of that fiber in the ground is lit. We need to figure out a way to fill the other 45% (figuring interesting things start happening above 50% utilization). Just my 2¢. Best regards, _________________________ Alan Rowland -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of brett watson Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 1:09 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: my sig --On Wednesday, August 07, 2002 03:48:27 PM -0400 William Warren <hescominsoon@adelphia.net> wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
wow, you took heat for that .sig? *that* is obnoxious and self-indulging (and yes i meant to reply to this silly list). i should go re-read the nanog charter (or the internet charter i guess) and see where it says you can't have a .sig that talks about God (or the Bible, or whatever). -b
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 14:02:13 -0700 Al Rowland <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net> wrote:
ensure that people know who you are, be sure to include a line or two at the end of your message with contact information
...
There's nothing here about content restrictions but it does say "a line or two." I believe the original objection in this thread was to the two line E-mail with a 10 line sig file. N
i believe that "obnoxious and self indulgent" are lines i used in an off list message explaining the objections. i was refering to long standing traditions that any signature containing more than 4 lines is considered excessive, irrespective of content. richard -- Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:02:13 PDT, Al Rowland <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net> said:
Bu then again with the poliferation of "enhanced E-mail clients" and net citizens sending 65K three-paragraphs-of-text E-mails with 50K animated GIF sigs and 10Kbackgrounds in HTML (done Yahoo! Mail lately?), maybe
Equally annoying are systems that attach a disclaimer to the mail, not matter how stupid it is (My favorite is "this mail may contain confidential or priviledged information" - sure makes *ME* get warm and fuzzy thinking about people doing that without PGP or something). http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers (Yes, it has operational impact - ever gotten a trouble report via e-mail and the disclaimer says you're not allowed to forward it to the engineer who can actually fix the problem? ;) -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Oh please.. as long as your posts are not a waste of time who cares about the sig. Christian Liendo My sig: Christian is just a name and I didn't choose it. At 03:48 PM 8/7/2002 -0400, William Warren wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
God Bless, Wiliam Warren Faithwalk.org
Now this is funny! On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Christian Liendo wrote:
Oh please.. as long as your posts are not a waste of time who cares about the sig.
Christian Liendo
My sig: Christian is just a name and I didn't choose it.
At 03:48 PM 8/7/2002 -0400, William Warren wrote:
the sig is removed....I am saddened that my sig was/is considered obnoxious and self-indulging. I appreciate the explanations.
God Bless, Wiliam Warren Faithwalk.org
participants (10)
-
Al Rowland -
brett watson -
Christian Liendo -
David Klindt -
Dominic J. Eidson -
Omachonu Ogali -
Richard Welty -
Scott Granados -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Warren