# On the concept of changing signature lines



## hewunch

The poll that was not supposed to be a debate became just that. I kept my comments to myself as normally people smarter than I express what I am thinking in a better way. But as the poll is closed and I did not see anyone bring up this point (admittedly I did not read every response). So if someone did say this, my apologies. And *it is not my intention to start another war, flame, or push any buttons. It is just trying to think through the whole issue.*

If the owners decide to pull religious statements from signature lines because of offense, should we then stop posting religious themed pens? I am thinking the following

"Fisher's of Men" Kits
"Fish or Cross" clips
Bethlehem Olive Wood
El-Mostro's Blanks with Crosses
Other blanks with crosses
Lasered Fish kits

I guess my point is where would you draw the line?


----------



## TellicoTurning

Hans,
I don't want to stir up any controversy or create any bad feelings.  And I am a very tolerant person when it comes to religion or religious things... If I'm not interested, then I ignore.. If I am interested, then I'm open to discussion.  It's not my place nor my right to censor, or advise or otherwise tell anyone else what they should believe or say.  Personally, I believe that is biggest problem we are having in this country.  This country was founded so there could be religious tolerance and I think we need to go back to that.

I have my beliefs and as such I believe they are private and for my use only.  

I don't make religious themed pens, only because they are not my choice to make, I do use BOW because it is beautiful wood, not because of any religious connotations.  That said, I see many pens with the cross, Celtic cross (which is also a religious symbol) and the fisher's of men center bands and admire all of them for the grace, skill, workmanship and beauty they all signify.  And it is my intention to someday make some of the fisher's of men pens, I like that particular design because I think it's pretty.

This is not a poll, but I vote no we should not stop posting the pens you mentioned because the postings are for the purpose of showing off the skill involved in their creation.


----------



## jkeithrussell

hewunch said:


> I guess my point is where would you draw the line?


 
Somewhere very, very far short of the options listed in your post. I think this whole discussion has become irrational. We're all subject to whatever rules are set out by the owner whether we like them or not. What is or is not "religious" is not my problem. Simple as that. 

In the other thread that is now closed, there was a tip posted about how to eliminate other people's signatures as one of your options. I think that's a fine idea, and I've just made the change. If you are concerned about what is in someone else's signature, I recommend that you make the change and find something else to fret about. 

I keep IAP up most of the day at work and I really enjoy all of the good discussions, opportunities to buy interesting blanks, and the willingness that people have to help me solve pen-related problems. The debate about the religious issues just has no relevance to the website


----------



## jedgerton

*My two cents*

I voted in the poll yesterday and withheld my comments but today I can't hold back further.  It concerns me greatly that we are gravitating toward a mentality that if you like something that's different from my taste, I should be offended.  The whole discussion about what is or is not acceptable in signature lines is about drawing lines between what is and is not acceptable.

My suggestion is to draw a line only when someones post, signature line or other means of communication is derogatory or degrading to someone else.  I hope that if I profess to like vanilla, the chocolate lovers of the world won't be offended.  If I however say that chocolate lovers are the scum of the earth (and I'm one of them by the way) I expect to be censored.

If we draw lines like those being suggested on signature lines, there is almost no end to where and about what those lines could be drawn.  I suggest we be very careful here.

John

BTW, is my signature line religious???


----------



## gketell

jedgerton said:


> BTW, is my signature line religious???



Yup.

I also didn't make comment since we were asked not to but my .02 is that as long as their comments are not derogatory nor inflammatory then there is no reason to censor them.  If someone doesn't like seeing the quotes (be they religious or otherwise), disable the signatures.  People have got to stop thinking they have the right to tell others how to live their lives.  And this goes for both ends of the spectrum.

GK


----------



## Dario

Someone actually reads our signature lines??? 

:tongue::biggrin:


----------



## Crashmph

*Truly Ridiculous*

This is truly getting ridiculous now.:frown: Who cares what is in a signature. 

I have to agree with jedgerton here. As long as one group is not being offensive to another why should it matter?


----------



## Dario

Crashmph said:


> As long as one group is not being offensive to another why should it matter?



Exactly!!!  But as Curtis mentioned...someone is complaining.  So it matters now.


----------



## Crashmph

Dario said:


> Exactly!!!  But as Curtis mentioned...someone is complaining.  So it matters now.



So let the masses evaluate what was offensive, not a single person. Trial by jury if you will.:biggrin:


----------



## mrplace

Curtis/Jeff, feel free to delete this if you feel it is inappropriate. 
 
I have not complained about signature lines, I am only providing a view from the 'other side' of this debate.
 
I am an Atheist, and I do not hide it. I am a lifetime member of American Atheists. I am not offended by others who wish to have religious themed signatures, BUT there should be a same tolerance for my signatures.
 
Example in a statement, They say: There is a/are God(s). I say: There is/are no God(s). Those of a religious background are going to be offended by the latter, and those with an Atheist belief will be offended by the first. 
 
Who is right, and who is wrong? This should not be a forum for a personal stand on the subject. Signature lines are being used to skirt the AUP and make a point and send a message. A post mentioning a prayer is not the same, although it may be in the gray area, as would be someone discussing Darwin or evolution. In my opinion, a pen with a religious theme would be no problem as it is directly pen related.
 
In the interest of fairness and maintaining what this forum was set up to be, we should drop anything that is not related to pen making. No politics, no religion, and no philosophies.

If it is allowed, where is the line going to be drawn? How blatant of a statement is going to be accepted from either side? Religion or Atheism / Creationism or Evolution / Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, if you allow it, you ARE going to alienate someone.


----------



## mrplace

Deleted double post.


----------



## Skye

Mr. Place, I'll go ahead and address your post and do it as simply as I can, as it's a simple idea.

Open mind, closed mind.
Speaking positively, speaking negatively.

Your signatures are entirely inappropriate if you ask me. Why? Because yours speaks against something. It speaks negatively about something. The idea that you're unable to see the difference is _very_ doubtful.

You are dealing with a large audience with a vast array of beliefs. If you walked into an ice cream convention with a shirt that said "Chocolate is for idiots." you know darn well you're going to bother people. If you walk in with a shirt that said "I love chocolate!" then you're going to get an entirely different reaction. Those that agree will be happy, those that don't won't take offense as it doesn't insult their tastes. The first shirt would do just that.


----------



## mywoodshopca

Skye said:


> Mr. Place,
> 
> Your signatures are entirely inappropriate if you ask me.


 
I agree.. this sig is just trying to cause trouble and stir the pot to get them to ban all religious sigs..


BIG Difference on positive or neg..

example:

If someone posted a sig saying "god is great".. all the power to them, but if someone posted a sig saying " god is great and everyone who dont agree is idiots".. that would not be appropiate.

Yours is hitting on a neg area to cause trouble.


----------



## mrplace

Skye said:


> Open mind, closed mind.
> Speaking positively, speaking negatively.


 
This is my point. You believe, so you take offense. When I say the world evolved, those who believe in creationism are offended.

I believe there are no God(s), that is a personal belief. That offends people who say there are gods.

So it could be equally offensive to either party. Except I am not offended when you tell me there are gods, as the religious group is if you tell them there are no gods.

You say I talk against something, that is only because that is how you are taking it. I am writing a personal belief that can be reasonably proven with historical facts. I am no attacking anyone’s belief system. I am stating a position.

If you write something of a religious nature, you are writing against my personal beliefs also, regardless of how positive you feel it is. It is a challenge to my belief and is calling my belief in to question.

I have no problems with having my beliefs called in to question and I am not offended if they are, but I should be afforded the same opportunity.



mywoodshopca said:


> example:
> 
> If someone posted a sig saying "god is great".. all the power to them, but if someone posted a sig saying " god is great and everyone who dont agree is idiots".. that would not be appropiate.
> 
> .


 
So if someone says "God is Great" that is as offensive to me, just as it would be to that person if I said "Gods are a myth". Is that person anymore entitled to offend me than I am entitled to offend them?
 
I am NOT advocating taking out religious signatures, and no one should think I am pushing for that. I have not been offended one way or the other. My original post was to promote tolerance. If "religious" signatures are allowed, then all signatures should be allowed with the exception of obscenities and personal attacks.
 
There is no good answer to this problem. This is the same as political discussions, neither party is correct. Each side has a view that is opposing to the other.


----------



## mywoodshopca

What we need to have is the ability to "hide/block" certain people we find offensive,etc.. this would cause a lot less hassles across the board. :wink:


----------



## rjwolfe3

We do  - you can put people on your ignore list.


----------



## Skye

mrplace said:


> I am stating a position.



A negative position.

If I post something religious like "God is Love!", then it may not agree with your belief system, but it's not attacking it.

If I post something like "Turn or Burn!", then it's against your belief system and it is attacking it.

You can play this coy game if you want but you're really not fooling anyone. The really humorous thing about your position is that you blame religion for causing conflict. Now, your using your personal belief that religion is to blame for problems to cause problems. Who will get the blame when this goes sour? Religion, even though it's you stirring the pot. It's an easy scapegoat and you're monopolizing on it.


----------



## THarvey

mrplace said:


> This is my point. You believe, so you take offense. When I say the world evolved, those who believe in creationism are offended.
> 
> I believe there are no God(s), that is a personal belief. That offends people who say there are gods.
> 
> So it could be equally offensive to either party. Except I am not offended when you tell me there are gods, as the religious group is if you tell them there are no gods.
> 
> You say I talk against something, that is only because that is how you are taking it. I am writing a personal belief that can be reasonably proven with historical facts. I am no attacking anyone’s belief system. I am stating a position.
> 
> If you write something of a religious nature, you are writing against my personal beliefs also, regardless of how positive you feel it is. It is a challenge to my belief and is calling my belief in to question.
> 
> I have no problems with having my beliefs called in to question and I am not offended if they are, but I should be afforded the same opportunity.



MrPlace:

You and I will never agree on our personal beliefs.  However, I fully agree with your last statement.

I, for one, do not find your tag lines offensive.  Why? Because they make a general statement that expresses your personal beliefs.  Neither quote attacks another individuals belief system, or personal choice.

As I stated in the other thread, personal beliefs are one of the things that make individuals unique.

I think that anyone that is truely rooted in their beliefs can hold those beliefs without attacking the belief systems of others.  If not, then I would question if they truly believe or are they still trying to convince themselves by down playing an opposing view.

If I cannot support my beliefs, without attacking others, then my beliefs mean very little.

In a community forum, such as this one, we should be able to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.


----------



## mrplace

Skye said:


> A negative position.
> 
> If I post something religious like "God is Love!", then it may not agree with your belief system, but it's not attacking it.
> 
> If I post something like "Turn or Burn!", then it's against your belief system and it is attacking it.
> 
> You can play this coy game if you want but you're really not fooling anyone. The really humorous thing about your position is that you blame religion for causing conflict. Now, your using your personal belief that religion is to blame for problems to cause problems. Who will get the blame when this goes sour? Religion, even though it's you stirring the pot. It's an easy scapegoat and you're monopolizing on it.


 

You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.

===================================
I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.

Sorry Curtis.


----------



## mywoodshopca

rjwolfe3 said:


> We do - you can put people on your ignore list.


 

Thanks!! This cleaned up the thread a bit :wink:  I can do without the ones trying to cause trouble on here instead of doing more productive things in life.


----------



## NewLondon88

I think it is a wonderful idea to ban anything religious in signatures, clothing,
jewelry, billboards, television and everything else I can think of. I'm tired of
being offended and I consider it emotional abuse to subject me to the stress
of seeing people who have something in their life.
While we're at it, can we ban ugly people from appearing in public? I think
they offend the senses and should be restricted to their own homes to leave
the rest of us in peace. Oh ,and blondes ,too. Make blondes illegal. That way
there would be no more blonde jokes and I won't have to laugh politely when
I pretend that I 'get it'.

Seriously, there's too many people minding everyone else's business and
playing 'victim' .. taking offense where none has been offered, trying to make
themselves a 'put-upon' minority. As for the 'right' not to be offended?
There's no such thing. Life is tough. Wear a cup.

I think that whatever someone wants to put in the signature (provided it
isn't illegal) it is their business, unless it violates the guidelines set forth
by the site owner. (There's no 'right' to free speech on a website)
I can read it or ignore it. And when something is perceived as going 
'too far', the IAP community doesn't seem to have a problem letting each
other know.

Can we get back to turning? :biggrin:
 .. and blonde jokes?


----------



## ed4copies

*QUOTE:  There is no good answer to this problem. This is the same as political discussions, neither party is correct. Each side has a view that is opposing to the other*
** 
*Actually, ONE side IS correct.  Trouble is, you won't know which one until you DIE.  Same is true of politics.  There IS a right and wrong answer, but only HISTORY can discern the difference.*
** 
*Meanwhile, why not tolerate each other's opinions - in that THEY  may be CORRECT, in hindsight.*
** 
*I object to anyone murdering anyone else on the site.  Verbal barbs will NOT lead to physical harm.   OPEN your minds, accept others' views.  YOU MAY learn something.*
** 
*If you talk with and listen to, only those with whom you agree, your outlook on life, will, necessarily be narrow.  *
** 
*Now, does Jeff HAVE to allow that conversation to take place on HIS penturning site???   ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!  (I would like it if he did, but MANY would NOT like it - he attempts to please MOST of the people and OFFEND as FEW as possible)  I wouldn't want HIS job or Curtis' --- but they know that!*


----------



## mrplace

Charles and Ed, I agree with you both 100%. 

I did not start this thread, nor am I one who complained. I merely responded with an opposing opinion. If Jeff decides only to allow only religous signatures, so be it. 

I have no problem having dialog over my beliefs, or having my beliefs questioned. If you want to question how I view life, do not be offended if I question yours. Questions are not personal attacks, and I do not normally take them that way.


----------



## RichB

I do not read signatures.  I joined to learn about pen turning so all I read is the threads with information on my hobby.


----------



## Skye

mrplace said:


> You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.
> 
> ===================================
> I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.
> 
> Sorry Curtis.



Personal attack? It's just the way I feel and I should be afforded such. Ring a bell?

Bottom line is you're being passive aggressive in order to aggravate a topic in hopes that it wipes out everything. Your talk of "personal attacks", your "banning" and your "crossed the line" is all further proof of this.

It's nothing new, nothing forums haven't seen before.


----------



## wizical

mrplace said:


> You are trying to defend your position with emotions and personal attacks. I have presented several cases for either banning or allowing, I have no problem either way. Whatever is done, needs to be equal for all parties.
> 
> ===================================
> I think we have offically crossed the line with this discussion.
> 
> Sorry Curtis.



Mr. Place,

I agree with you on this one, who cares what is posted in the signature line, whatever happened to having thick skin and letting things roll off of your shoulder.  

I actually like his quote, i think it is different.  but for some people to start attacking one's beliefs is wrong and should not be tolerated.  

the bottom line is that some people on here are looking to pick a fight and there is no reason for one.


----------



## Russianwolf

:bulgy-eyes:







:RockOn:


----------



## mrplace

Skye said:


> Bottom line is you're being passive aggressive in order to aggravate a topic in hopes that it wipes out everything.



As I have stated several times in previous posts, I did not start this discussion, I only responded to it. I have not complained about anyone's post or signatures. So for you to try to place blame on me, is an attempt at a personal attack, and is so demonstrated by the continued comments that I somehow had a hand in this topic being started or in Curtis taking a poll on the topic.

My signatures are not anything new. The current ones have been in place for almost a year. They are not targeted at any specific religion.

If I would not have posted an opposing opinion, it could have been construed as silent approval. More or less the same thing as allowing our school kids to wear t-shirts proclaiming "Jesus is God" and then making another child cover up their Darwin Fish, or American Atheist Logo.

I can not say it enough, I do not care what anyone's personal beliefs are, but one belief should not be respected or accepted more than another, at another persons expense.

Leave the religious signatures, but all religious signatures should be allowed, even if they conflict with others beliefs. If you are not willing to overlook my signatures, as I should have to overlook yours, then they should be removed.


----------



## arioux

Where is that dead horse when we need it ?


----------



## Mudder

ed4copies said:


> *   OPEN your minds, accept others' views.  YOU MAY learn something.*



If your mind is too open your brain might fall out


----------



## john l graham

The dead horse got so tired of getting kicked that he got up and left.


----------



## Skye

mrplace said:


> Leave the religious signatures, but all religious signatures should be allowed, even if they conflict with others beliefs.



A conflicting religious signature would be a positive statement from a Wiccan, a Buddhist, a Muslim, Scientologist, a Christian. They can live side by side with a little common courtesy.

A signature that tries to defame, to belittle or combat a different religion or religion as a whole, is another thing.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. You can make a positive personal statement that conflicts with someone elses beliefs without causing a problem. 

You can profess your own beliefs without directly bashing those that oppose it. All you have to do is care enough to try to be civil. Unfortunatly, you're the only one who can make you care.


----------



## jeff

I'm getting a lot of PM's asking "are you reading this thread?" 

Yes, I am following this discussion with great interest. 

Keep it civil, it'll stay open. So far, ok.


----------



## mrplace

Since you seem to think my signature is "bashing" or defamatory, can you factually disprove either of my statements, or otherwise prove they are inaccurate?

For me to be Defaming, the statement would have to be inaccurate. 

Questioning what others state as fact or truth is not belittling or defamatory, it is an attempt to put the facts in the open for everyone to see and scrutinize.

A statement such as "Jesus is the way, the truth and the light" or Jesus is the savior" could be construed negatively by more than one religion, as well as Atheists, because you have made a claim that their belief is not accurate, and that they are in error believing the way they do.

It seem you would like to suppress or ban what you disapprove of and only allow what you agree with. So, with you taking that position, I have to take the same position in defense of mine.

If you where willing to live with mine, I would be willing to live with yours. That is not the case judging from your posts. You want to edit signatures that support Atheism, but want to leave those that are supportive of Evangelical beliefs. This is neither fair or acceptable to either party.

I am not promoting banning, I am promoting tolerance by all parties. If all parties can not tolerate, then that only leaves removal to be fair.


----------



## bitshird

I don't know what to think about all of this, I voted, but didn't comment on the mess yesterday, but I will now, I think this whole thing has gotten to the point of being ridiculous, I honor every persons belief system, as I expect them to honor and not defame mine nor bring me harm, when that happens then it will be settled as expediently as possible with the best of my ability and with my last breath. If we want to get totally asinine lets ban pens made from BOW all together and cross refill discussions, in the past few months I've seen way to much hostility and flame postings. 
Personally I think that as individuals we all have opinions, which are not unlike certain bodily orifices in that we all have them. I tend to be Agnostic, but I still go to church, when one of our members asks for a prayer I pray for them, were I to lay claim to any organized religion, it would most likely be the O.O.B.D. I realize that we are human and as such are flawed, some more than others.
This was a great family a short while ago, I remember when several members needed help, and many of us did as much as we could, some did more than they could. None of us asked for any recognition, I personally wasn't interested in receiving any reward for my contribution, and I'm sure that most of the others were as I just helping a friend. Why can't we just let this rest, if you wish to praise God for all he has done for you then do it, if you wish to praise Buddha, Mohamed, or your favorite tree, then do so, but please don't try and force your beliefe or lack there of upon me.
I've yet to be offended by any ones signature lines, although I think Cav has aimed a few of his directly at me :embarrassed: and he hasn't used any religious references, To quote the great Rodney King "why can't we just all get along" lets remember Veritas et equitas, all that matters are these simple words An ye harm none, do what ye will.


----------



## ed4copies

Defaming, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

You may CALL me anything you like.  I am NOT defamed, unless I choose to be.  You are a stranger, in a far-off part of the country or world.  You know little about me.  WHY should you be able to influence MY opinion of ME!!!!!?????

You may make a nice pen, or a crappy pen - that, assumedly, is what brought us together.  IF we become friends, your opinion takes on somewhat more value to me.  However I was really wrong about one OJSimpson, whom I thought I knew after watching him on Television and in sports.  I know MUCH LESS about most of the members of the IAP.

Having said that, I once thought I was an atheist, or at least an agnostic.  My views have changed.  That cannot happen if you close your mind.  Let the LIGHT in and don't let Mudder worry you, your brain is in your SKULL, so opening your MIND is fairly safe.

And Jeff, good judgment!!


----------



## Dario

THarvey said:


> MrPlace:
> 
> You and I will never agree on our personal beliefs.  However, I fully agree with your last statement.
> 
> I, for one, do not find your tag lines offensive.  Why? Because they make a general statement that expresses your personal beliefs.  Neither quote attacks another individuals belief system, or personal choice.
> 
> As I stated in the other thread, personal beliefs are one of the things that make individuals unique.
> 
> I think that anyone that is truely rooted in their beliefs can hold those beliefs without attacking the belief systems of others.  If not, then I would question if they truly believe or are they still trying to convince themselves by down playing an opposing view.
> 
> If I cannot support my beliefs, without attacking others, then my beliefs mean very little.
> 
> In a community forum, such as this one, we should be able to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.



Good post and I agree.

Oddly I see valid points from both camps (as much as I disagree on some) both are right in their own ways.

Bottom line, we just need to learn to respect others...even if it is very difficult.


----------



## jedgerton

Has anyone checked the poll recently?  It seems pretty clear to me what the members of this site are saying.  My hat is off to Jeff and Curtis for allowing such a spirited debate.  I just hope we don't adopt a policy to indulge a few at the expense of many.

John


----------



## gketell

my .02

MrPlace's signature are stating his beliefs.  He chooses to not believe in God.  OK, his choice.  Other people's state their beliefs including scriptures.  They believe in God.  OK, their choice.

If you don't like someone's belief system, that is your choice.  But no one should have the audacity to think they get to control what others believe or control others from stating their beliefs.

If there becomes a need to remove one person's beliefs from their signature then it would only be appropriate to remove everyone's beliefs from their signatures.

I personally think we should all learn to be more accepting of others' beliefs.  Keep all the signatures.  Stop whining when you see something you don't like if it is just a "I don't like this" issue or a "I don't agree with this" issue.

GK


----------



## Skye

mrplace said:


> You want to edit signatures that support Atheism, but want to leave those that are supportive of Evangelical beliefs.



By what means does your sig promote Atheism?

Does it do it by touting it's own positive merits or does it by badmouthing another's?


----------



## mrplace

The problem with beliefs are that they are emotional. Anytime you deal with emotions, someone is going to offended.

As I have tried to explain, and Greg hit on it a little, my signature is something I believe. It is not and was not written as an attack. However, since some disagree with it, they want perceive it as an attack and present it the same way in an attempt to stifle or remove it.

Unless a signature is blatantly obscene or a blatant attack, everything should be left as is.


----------



## mrplace

Skye said:


> By what means does your sig promote Atheism?
> 
> Does it do it by touting it's own positive merits or does it by badmouthing another's?



It is not badmouthing anyone. There is no specific party identified.


----------



## Mudder

Skye said:


> A conflicting religious signature would be a positive statement from a Wiccan, a Buddhist, a Muslim, Scientologist, a Christian. They can live side by side with a little common courtesy.




Hmmm,

If I change my signature to "Radical Muslims are da bomb" would that be considered offensive?

Any problems with this? "Jesus saves, passes to Moses, shoots...SCORES!"

or this?  "When religion ruled the world they called it the Dark Ages"


----------



## Russianwolf

Mudder said:


> Hmmm,
> 
> If I change my signature to "Radical Muslims are da bomb" would that be considered offensive?
> 
> Any problems with this? "Jesus saves, passes to Moses, shoots...SCORES!"
> 
> or this?  "When religion ruled the world they called it the Dark Ages"



How about

"Some believe gods created man in their image,
Others believe man created gods in their image."


----------



## Skye

mrplace said:


> There is no specific party identified.



"Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito."


----------



## mrplace

Skye said:


> "Don't use a cannon to kill a mosquito."



The terms are generalizations and you are attempting to personalize it so it fits within your definition negativism.


----------



## jeff

Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs. 

About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."

This is really not fun.


----------



## ldb2000

Jeff , you have my deepest sympathy . This whole debate is just dumb . I hate to say it because I love my signature but you might as well get rid of ALL signatures before you loose your mind . Once again stupidity will force everyone to loose .


----------



## Dario

jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> 
> This is really not fun.



One of the few times I don't envy you Jeff.

I am on the camp of "I hope you don't ban religion" but won't threaten to leave.

If and when the (unfortunate) time comes, I will just leave w/o saying anything. :biggrin::redface:


----------



## Dario

ldb2000 said:


> Jeff , you have my deepest sympathy . This whole debate is just dumb . I hate to say it because I love my signature but you might as well get rid of ALL signatures before you loose your mind . Once again stupidity will force everyone to loose .



Sad part is...if Jeff does that, then they (whoever they are) wins once again.

I am not the combatant type but sometimes you have to draw the line and take a stand for what is "right" or "better" for the majority.  Note that it may be against what I believe.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN

Jeff, I for one could care less about baning or not baning, how would it be if all signatures were just that, your name,city,state and if you have a PEN site a link. No funny sayings, no religious, nothing  but what 
i said above. 





jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> 
> This is really not fun.


----------



## rjwolfe3

I would have to agree with Roy on this one.


----------



## NewLondon88

jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."



I'm glad I'm not a site owner; I don't handle ultimatums well.

I wouldn't give anyone the choice of whether or not they leave.
This is not their site, it is not a democracy, and your decisions aren't 
up for debate.


----------



## ldb2000

Dario , at this point it don't matter who wins , this "well if I can't have it my way , I'm leaving" attitude is absolutely ridiculous . This is a penturning forum and this kind of childish behavior has no place here . Jeff , whatever you decide will be fine with me and maybe we can get back to what we came here for ....PENTURNING .


----------



## cozee

All or nothing. Anything in between is left open for interpretation or manipulation.


Next in line is avatars.


----------



## OKLAHOMAN

How would just Name, City, State and a link to a PEN web-site be left open to interpretation or manipulation?





cozee said:


> All or nothing. Anything in between is left open for interpretation or manipulation.
> 
> 
> Next in line is avatars.


----------



## rjwolfe3

Unfortunately Roy there are some people that are offended by us putting links to our websites because they say that we are marketing that way. 

Please note that I am not offended by anything except maybe that PINK UNIFORM that I saw.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## Gagler

All of you have way too much time on your hands, or it must be too cold in your shops to do any turning.

I found this site a few months ago, and it seems I would spend a couple of hours at a time looking and learning.  Then I went away for a while, as it seemed each time I logged on there was a gang bang going on bashing someone.

Here I am again, and there is all sorts of stuff at the top when I hit "New Posts" not even related to pen turning.

One of Mrplace's tag lines is 100% on the money - more wars caused in the name of religion, no matter what your religious preference (or not) may be.  Christians against Jews, Jews against Muslims, Muslims against non-Muslims, all religions against pagans, and you could fill a book.  However, this has gone beyond a simple tag line, but really a lot of people wanting to roll up their sleeves and fight someone within the anonymity of the Internet.

I consider myself a fairly religious person; I do, however, have more faults than good qualities, but I work on it.  One thing I have found out over the years is, generally speaking of course, if someone has their mind made up one way or the other you're not going to convince them otherwise unless there is some kind of epiphany (good or bad) that could sway their decision.

On one hand, you have the liberal atheists who want to shout it out how everyone else is wrong and force their way of thinking on you (remember the late Madeline Murray O'Hair from Austin), to other atheists who really don't give a crap what you think as long as you leave them alone.  On the other side of the equation, you have have aggressive members of other religions doing the same, but at the other end of the spectrum you have other members of <insert religious preference here> who also don't give a crap as long as you leave them alone.

I visit this site because I want to learn more about my craft, ooh and ahh over your pictures of pens and say "how did he/she do that" and generally become a better woodworker in my precious free time.  If I wanted to engage in a religious debate, or go bash someone in a faceless public forum I will spend my time at those sites as appropriate.

I do care about Mrplace's pen turning contributions, as I want to see what others can create; I really don't care to see an endless and pointless waste of time plowing through to see if a post is pen-turning or dogpile related on something that has been debated over and over before recorded history.

As a Christian, I do care Mrplace is an announced atheist, but there is not much I can do about it except lead my life as an example.  If, when he is on the other side of the dirt and comes to the conclusion he was wrong, there is not much he will be able to do about it at that time.  If, when I am on the other side of the dirt and I am wrong I'll never know - except I will have departed knowing I led my life to the fullest and, hopefully, was a good example to most of those I touched (like others, I do have regrets).

On a lighter note, since I am also an avowed capitalist, is there anything wrong with my current tagline?

Regards,

Michael in the Houston suburbs


----------



## OKLAHOMAN

Hell than just name rank and serial #. In other words signature only : Name unless your name is Dante or Jesus.





rjwolfe3 said:


> Unfortunately Roy there are some people that are offended by us putting links to our websites because they say that we are marketing that way.
> 
> Please note that I am not offended by anything except maybe that PINK UNIFORM that I saw.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:


----------



## cozee

OKLAHOMAN said:


> How would just Name, City, State and a link to a PEN web-site be left open to interpretation or manipulation?



Sorry Roy, I was speaking in relation to the religious tag line issue.



> Name unless your name is Dante or Jesus.


But what if "Jesus" is of Mexican/Latino heritage?


----------



## Skye

jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> 
> This is really not fun.



I say keep them.

It's like a guy with too many beers in him. The true self comes out.

If someone's going to put something stupid in their sig, they're only giving you an insight into who they are. If we like it or not, it's better to know.

Besides, as was said before:







If you can't stand to see it, *TURN THE SIGNATURE OPTION OFF!*

*It's not fair to hand Jeff an ultimatum if you have a perfect solution you're not utilizing!*


----------



## TexasSteel

All of this reminds me of a Hank Williams song "Mind your own Business" We would be alot better of if we went by this...........This issue has evolved into something silly...


----------



## marcruby

If everyone leaves can I have all the wood?

Marc...


----------



## TexasSteel

marcruby said:


> If everyone leaves can I have all the wood?
> 
> Marc...




 I'll wrastle you for it.....


----------



## Pen Maker

No Marc, I'm lurking here too. You can have Half!


----------



## Dario

marcruby said:


> If everyone leaves can I have all the wood?
> 
> Marc...



If someone leaves, our chances of winning something during the birthday bash increases!!!  :biggrin: :devil: :tongue::bananen_smilies008:

jk :wink:


----------



## hewunch

One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it. (Kung Fu Panda)


----------



## helgi

*Signatures*

Bye the Lord Thundering Jesus, I'm amazed with all the so called discussion back and forth, having been in the merchant navy for many years and traveled all over the world. And coming to settle in Canada, it is amazing that the people on this side of the pound are bickering about a signature that might or moght not have religious overtones. Take a step back people and reflect upon this, only in a free democracy are you allowed to question this and broadcast it. In some of the countries I have been you would and will be prosecuted or worse.
And yes many a person and peoples have undergone terror and hardship and persecution in the name of religion and that is a fact. My thought on this is: loosen up be greatful and thankful for what you have and where you live as well in America as Canada at least you have these freedoms to disagree and don't get hurt for it. So I hope that everyone in this group will be tolerant of their peers and refrain from further sniping at each other.
Just my thoughts.
Helgi


----------



## BigShed

Have been following this debate, and the previous debate in the poll thread (for the record: yes I voted, took the  "I don't care one way or the other" option).

This debate is not only going on on this forum, it is also going on in Australia after the British Humanist Association's advertising campaign on London buses motivated the Atheist Foundation in Australia to try and do the same thing.
However they were knocked back by the owners of the public transport system; reason: "It might offend people". Heaven forbid!


----------



## MesquiteMan

Gagler said:


> On a lighter note, since I am also an avowed capitalist, is there anything wrong with my current tagline?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Michael in the Houston suburbs


 
Actually, Michael, yes there is something wrong with your signature line, at least on my monitor at 1280 x 1024! You are allowed 5 lines of text including spaces. Yours is 7!:biggrin:


----------



## edman2

As a Baptist Minister of Education I have felt like I should post something on this thread. And...now that I have...I feel better!


----------



## BigShed

jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> 
> This is really not fun.



I'm sorry to hear this caused you so much grief Jeff.

Perhaps you should have heeded the politicians' saying: "Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer".

FWIW, I would suggest leaving things as they are, those that don't want to see religious signatures can switch signatures off. To those that want to leave over such a trivial issue I would say, sleep on it - usually things are much brighter in the morning.


----------



## wdcav1952

jeff said:


> Over the last few hours I've received dozens of PMs.
> 
> About half say, "If you ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> The other half say, "If you don't ban religious signatures, I'm leaving."
> 
> This is really not fun.



Jeff, 

To me, the answer is "If you don't like my decision and choose to leave, we will miss you."


----------



## wdcav1952

rjwolfe3 said:


> Unfortunately Roy there are some people that are offended by us putting links to our websites because they say that we are marketing that way.
> 
> Please note that I am not offended by anything except maybe that PINK UNIFORM that I saw.:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:




Hey, I resemble that remark!!!! :redface:


----------



## DocStram

Well, I guess it's my turn to step up to the plate.  In an effort to avoid rambling, I'll get right to my points:

1. In my opinion, the AUP ("Discussions of politics and religion are not allowed") seems to be incongruent with the policy of allowing Biblical quotes in signature lines.  My feeling is that signature lines are often used to make religious statements (and sometimes political, for example: "Annoy a liberal, get a job!").  There seems to be little difference between making a religious statement in a signature line and making a post about religion. 

If we're going to allow Biblical quotes in signature lines, then why not allow discussions of a religious nature?


2. I feel that certain members use signature line Biblical quotes as a form of religious bullying. For example, I've seen signature lines with the Biblical quotes in a larger, bold font .... which I interpret to be almost the same as posting in all uppercase letters.  "QUIT YELLING!"


3. I understand perfectly well what mrplace is stating.  While I have a different view of religion than he does, I happen to agree with the points that he has presented.  I thought he did an excellent job of articulating his position. 


4. I object to certain members who insist on making asinine comments in their posts that have nothing to do with politics but find a way to weasel in negative comments about political beliefs ..... for example, making derogatory remarks about our President's ethnicity.

In short, we should expect others in IAP to treat us as we treat them ... with respect and dignity.


----------



## arioux

Whatever we beleive or not in a religon, when your nuckel hit the chuck or your thum just go too far on the bandsaw, we all make the same prayer..... well at least we all have religious word coming out of our mouth !!!!
So we are not that different


----------



## woody350ep

arioux said:


> Whatever we beleive or not in a religon, when your nuckel hit the chuck or your thum just go too far on the bandsaw, we all make the same prayer..... well at least we all have religious word coming out of our mouth !!!!
> So we are not that different



Hmmm, I may be guilty of that once in a while.  I do know for the most part though, that I release obscenities that can get you arrested in some states   Sometimes I think I make up new words without thought


----------



## mrplace

Jeff, I personally am not going to leave regardless of your decision. I would encourage the others, on all sides, to be tolerant and to stick around regardless of the outcome.

I did not start this debate, and only responded because I felt the topic was being skewed in one direction, and that because some choose to keep their belief, or lack of belief, to their self, a decision would be made thinking that those who where posting represented the majority.

I felt I should post to voice a position that was not being considered. I did not do it with the intention of starting a flame war, or to specifically attack any belief. I am only wanting equality for all involved, and the same consideration provided to myself and others who do not share in religious beliefs, the same opportunity and consideration as those who have a religious belief.

I have presented my position and will not post any further in this thread. I am sure there are some who will continue to rail against me, instead of against my position. I will continue to answer the emails and PM's being sent. If you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to email or PM me.

Ralph


----------



## Mudder

*For your consideration.*

If you are religious and feel you need to let us all know why not just put "I'm a Christian" or "I'm Jewish",  "Methodist",  "Wiccan", "Atheist" or whatever your religious preference is. In that way you are stating your beliefs in a way that might be an acceptable compromise?


----------



## hewunch

If you will recall, I started this thread with the question, where do we stop. I know I have no control over a thread once started. But I have not seen much discussion on that topic after the first few posts.


----------



## garypeck

Mudder said:


> If you are religious and feel you need to let us all know why not just put "I'm a Christian" or "I'm Jewish", "Methodist", "Wiccan", "Atheist" or whatever your religious preference is. In that way you are stating your beliefs in a way that might be an acceptable compromise?


 

Just what it says below......


----------



## jeff

OK, I think we've beaten this sufficiently to a pulp. 

I'll post some revised guidelines later today.


----------



## Ozzy

The signatures are just an individual’s personal expression and not an attempt to turn anyone over to that individual’s beliefs. We all have that right. This whole topic is as ridiculous as the whole Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas issue. I don’t believe in Santa Clause nor am I a Christmas person but I don’t get pissed when I see all of the Santa Clauses running around during Christmas or when someone says Merry Christmas. This is as stupid as those few who try to get a channel removed from television because they find it offensive; if you don’t like it turn the channel and block that channel, there are well over 200 other channels to choose from. Just because you don’t like something or are offended by it does not give you the right to decide what I can or can’t see.

If members are made to remove their signatures, or make them politically correct, or make them jerk friendly; it will only be a matter of time before people start complaining about pens that have a religious tone and then they will want them blocked. Then it will only be a matter of time before the IAP implodes and we will no longer have this, with a few exceptions, wonderful place to share ideas and see other turners’ fantastic creations.

Some of you will read my comments and think that either I am one of you or that I am one of them but I will assure you that I am neither. My religious beliefs are just that; mine. I will tell you that I do not agree entirely with either side. I have spent part of my life on one side of the opposition and part on the other side and I realized that both sides are flawed. 

Unless someone personally attacks you, let it alone. For instance, back in the day when I did stand-up comedy, every now and then someone would sit through my entire act, 45 minutes to an hour, and come up to me after the show to tell me that I offended them and even suggest what jokes I should take out of my act. I assure you that they were definitely offended when I got done telling them how stupid they were for sitting through my entire act and then I would let them know what I thought about their crappy opinion. The point I am trying to make is that if they had struck up a conversation with me and maybe at some point said what I had said that offended them, I would have responded differently; I know because this has happened, but instead they chose to walk up to me and attack me right away.

If we all worked half as hard at being happy as some people do at being mad and offended, the world would be a much better place. The key to happiness is live, laugh, and love.


----------



## RichB

I just took signatures off now I can read more on a page that relates to pen turning


----------



## cozee

hewunch said:


> If you will recall, I started this thread with the question, where do we stop. I know I have no control over a thread once started. But I have not seen much discussion on that topic after the first few posts.


 

Like I said, intrepretation. One can be saying one thing and when someone reads it, because of perspective, they interpret it to mean something else or at the least, something a bit skewed from the original intention/proclamation.


----------



## Daniel

Honestly people have got to have better things to worry about than to complain about a signature line. If you don't you seriously need to throw your computer away and go get a life.


----------



## Ozzy

Daniel said:


> Honestly people have got to have better things to worry about than to complain about a signature line. If you don't you seriously need to throw your computer away and go get a life.



I second that.


----------



## Russianwolf

:redface:









:RockOn:


----------



## rjwolfe3

Mike
That banana scares me.:biggrin:


----------



## Skye

rjwolfe3 said:


> Mike
> That banana scares me.:biggrin:



That's not the first time he's been told that.









*ZIIIIIIING!*


----------



## rjwolfe3

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## Jerryconn

Daniel said:


> Honestly people have got to have better things to worry about than to complain about a signature line. If you don't you seriously need to throw your computer away and go get a life.



Amen!! .......oops.........errrrr   Right On! :biggrin:  (Don't get upset I'm just joking around)


----------



## gketell

I'm sure Jeff will do what he feels is best for the site and we all will abide by that decision or leave.

Personally, if it were my site and someone gave me an ultimatum of "do this or I will leave" then I would instantly and permanently ban that person for attempting to blackmail me.  And, really, there is little loss because if I don't do what they want they will go away anyway and if I do what they want then they will think they have the power to dictate how I should run my site in the future and how others should behave.  

But, again, Jeff will do what is right for Him and His Site and we should all back him 100% on His choice.

GK


----------



## jeff

The followup to this conversation is here.


----------

