Re: [users] Re: [Religious sigs] was Re: Water Marks

2010-04-06 Thread Programmer In Training
On 04/06/10 15:09, NoOp wrote: > I did. And realize that it was out of line. My apologies to 'Programer > in Training' and the list. Accepted and thank you. -- Yours In Christ, PIT Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. Original content copyright under the OWL ht

[users] Re: [Religious sigs] was Re: Water Marks

2010-04-06 Thread NoOp
On 04/06/2010 10:43 AM, Michael wrote: > On 4/5/2010 10:44 PM, NoOp wrote: >> >> Perhaps I was out of line for the comment, but you might want to >> consider that your sig might be offensive to some. For example folks >> might be offended by similar samples: >> >> - Catholics are pedophiles >> - C

Re: [users] Re: [Religious sigs] was Re: Water Marks

2010-04-06 Thread Paul
> > >> [snip] >> > > Did you /really/ just compare "yours in Christ" to the above statements? > If you are in fact trolling, I bit the bait. > > > Before everyone gets carried away with this topic - again. The list guidelines only state the following in respect to sig's: *A Signature should be no

[users] Re: [Religious sigs] was Re: Water Marks

2010-04-06 Thread Michael
On 4/5/2010 10:44 PM, NoOp wrote: Perhaps I was out of line for the comment, but you might want to consider that your sig might be offensive to some. For example folks might be offended by similar samples: - Catholics are pedophiles - Christians are infidels - Buddists are monkeys - Atheist's a