🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug23.230035.16836@access.usask.ca> jake@skatter.usask.ca  
writes:
> From article <BtGGwz.7JJ.2@cs.cmu.edu>, by anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar  
Mohammed):
> > In article <1992Aug20.164517.2148@macc.wisc.edu> anderson@macc.wisc.edu  
(Jess Anderson) writes:
> >>
> >>In article <1992Aug20.161439.7358@leland.Stanford.EDU>
> >>m@crito.stanford.edu (M Carling) writes:
> >>
> >>>M Carling
> >>>Director, Bay Area NeXT Group
> >>
> >>>I believe George Bush, Anita Hill, and Pinocchio.
> >>
> [stuff deleted]
> 
> > Can we stop complaining about .sig's?  What is the freaking point?
> > I see a lot of .sig's I've found offensive and I haven't seen you 
> > complain about them.
> > 
> > -anwar
> > 
> > Bill Clinton and Al Gore, Vote Ecoterrorists in '92!
> > -- 
> > Anwar Mohammed                           Graduate Student
> > anwar+@cs.cmu.edu  (NeXTmail welcome)    School of Computer Science
> > Voice: +1 412 268 3043                   Carnegie-Mellon University
> > Fax:   +1 412 681 5739                   Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
> 
> Why does ANYONE ANYWHERE EVER get their shit in a knot over something
> as completely insignificant as a .sig?
> 
> I second Anwar's opinion.
> 
> jake
I tend to agree, however, in case you missed it ;-), a .sig recently caused a
flame war, where the original .sig poster choose to defend it publicly in these
forums, rather than take it off-net to e-mail.  Totally inappropriate, in my  
own opinion.  I think, therefore, the 'group' is a bit sensitive to perceived  
inflammatory .sigs here.

Hopefully it'll all die down.  Don't fan the fire.

Jim De Arras