Oh I am sure, and I do know how to, but there is a lot of helpful stuff in a lot of people's signatures and I dont think that is the right answer (as I know you don't by the rolling of your eyes).

I am really trying to understand the thinking of FT on this more than to silence people from expressing themselves, because this whole policy mystified me (a lot clearer now thanks to Dov)

Since you are not giving a specific example and I can't read your mind, I'll say that such an example (as presented above) is not necessarily a personal attack directed against an individual FTer. As noted earlier, if the person being criticized, including criticized in the manner you say above, is not a member of FT, is that a personal attack directed at an FTer? No.

No you are right, it is about non-FT'ers and that is something I learned from Dov's post last night, that you can attack people outside of FT and that is ok (obviously I dont agree with that).

I read the piece of TOS I originally cited as a protection of/for people from outside of FT as being against attack also, which is why the compliance with the rule confused me so much (why I asked).

I guess I believe respect and some basic manners matter even if the person is not a member of FT.

[QUOTE=GUWonder;7465800]Since you are not giving a specific example and I can't read your mindQUOTE]

I am trying not to give a specific example (although there are many) as I would assume if I used a specific FT'ers signature as an example I would then be considered attacking them, and would probably get TOS'd asking about TOS *smile*

I think I answered you in my previous post though (we were posting at the same time)

Is your comment as unqualified as presented in the last paragraph above? If so, a lot of the comments about current/former leaders/members of organizations/entities -- legal, criminal, or otherwise -- would run foul of your "respect and some basic manners" position. Then again, perhaps your position is not about [u]all[/i] non-FTers/organizations/entities. :D

In any event, glad that Dovster's posts helped clarify the matter for you.

When it is direct personal attacks (for the pure sake of attacking) and not criticism yes it is pretty unqualified. Let me use myself as an example. It is no secret I dont like Mr. Parker (at us scareways *smile*). I do not feel it is wrong in a post about the sitation for me to say I think the man is crazy and should never have put his mitts on DL *grin*. However I think it would be INCREDIBLY wrong for me to have a signature that says "Doug Parker is a drunk, brainless, moron" even if I really think that and there is evidence to the fact! It is low class and I think it is wrong it is ok just because he doesnt post on FT

As I said at least twice in this thread, it is not my intention -- nor position -- to comment on what may or may not be enforced. That is up to Randy to answer.

As for the rest of your questions, the TOS is available to all members. The answers are there in black and white.

I wouldn't put up a signature about US-HP's Doug Parker like that either. However, that's not because I think that it's a TOS violation or that it necessarily should be considered a TOS violation; it's because I think it's neither effective nor an approach to my liking. Also, I know a Doug Parker who is neither drunk, nor brainless nor a moron -- he's just not the US-HP Doug Parker with an arrest for drunken driving in the aftermath of US-HP's aborted "move" on DL. :eek:

boy, difficult to get a word in here. Rather than this get unreadably long, i'll close it temporarily so i can try and concentrate and answer to what is here.

Thanks for understanding.