It's not to do with using someone's alias, he claims that the information in his sig was provided by Rahvin and pointed us at the post which he claims Rahvin said this. Unfortunately for Tal, most of us read Rahvin's post for ourselves and can see that Rahvin said nothing of the sort. Tal is fooling no-one but himself.
I'm not sure if it was your suggestion or not, but someone suggested if it is truly offensive, ignoring him could be effective.
Certainly it would be effective - but if I ignored everyone like Tal, I would miss out on the occasional interesting conversation.
Even those like Tal deserve to have their opinions voiced, and their arguments shown.
After all, it's fun to prove him (and others) wrong.
The only time I take offense is when a poster's argument is misrepresented - it's dishonest. Tal is doing more than that - he's twisting the evidence I provided and essentially claiming that I proposed his bigotted, ludicrous "gay-gene cattle prod" idea. I take offense at being associated with that sort of mental drivel, and I assume any other poster would be similarly agitated were he to do something similar to their posts.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
I'm not sure I understand what you guys are talking about. Do you mean the signature with a heavenly figure above smoking new york, and an eagle, and a US flag?
I don't find that offensive.
I think Tal has the right to choose whatever sig he likes.
added in edit:
okay i realise now you are talking about the cattle prod thing. I don't find it offensive particulary, rather it is instructive about the militaristic mindset. Probably a bit worrying if you live next door to him though.
This message has been edited by mick, 08-26-2005 07:29 PM
I have defended Tal's signature on the ground that it is merely political satire, although I really had no idea what he was referring to and thought it a bit extreme. But having followed the discussion here, I think that if it really originated as an expression of something Rahvin posted, and Rahvin rejects it as a complete misrepresentation of his post, then I agree with those who say it should be removed.
Someone once threatened to turn a statement of mine into a signature line, in order for it to be mocked, and I found that extremely offensive -- even worse in that case however, as my name was given as its author, which at least Tal has not done. Nevertheless, because of the circumstances of its creation, and its offense to the specific poster it supposedly represents, I vote for Tal to change his signature.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-27-2005 02:53 AM
I agree very much with what Faith said but still think Tal should still be able to have whatever sig he likes. I wouldn't want this place censoring people too much. I agree it's meant as satire, and I think that's obvious enough; the fact that the satire is unsuccessful probably hinders Tal more than helps him; and I bet rahvin can handle being mocked a bit.
For what it's worth I think that avatars or signatures that mock the beliefs of others, or that could be hurtful to others should be removed. I think that Tal's is well over the line.Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
For what it's worth I think that avatars or signatures that mock the beliefs of others, ...
Well some beliefs are so ridiculous that they deserve to be mocked, like Noah's Ark for instance. My avatar, "Earthrise", could be seen as mocking the Flat Earthers. Where do people get the idea that all beliefs are equal and should be equally respected?
Tal's signature just shows that he's an uncouth, low browed individual with an inability to comprehend what he has read.