:rolleyes: right back at you - I made it clear, more than once, that I don’t think this instance is the equivalent of “background” levels of spirituality expression.
Why are you so reluctant to use the ignore setting? Why wouldn’t you use that rather than tell someone else how to post when it’s within the rules? It’s like the “lets go to the quarry” line and this will take care of itself the same way if you’d only let it.
If someone think this is funny, laugh. If you don’t like it either scroll on past or use ignore. Either way, the power is in you to handle this anyway you want and still respect the principle of within-SDMB-rules freedom-of-speech.
I have the solution. Someone buy her a guest membership, TPTB order her to make her signoff into a signature, and then we can all turn off signatures.
That would turn off everybody’s signatures, right? Eh, small price to pay.
And in another year, we can all argue who gets to buy her another guest membership and argue the whole thing through again.
Ignore function doesn’t hide quoted text, for one thing. And I’m not asking about this one particular user anyway - like I said, I haven’t interacted with her at all and while I’ve read the relevant Pit threads, the issue does seem confined in there for now so I can ignore that particular poster by just not reading those threads rather than making admin work for myself. I’m asking about the underlying principle and precedent of freeform board-wide religious witnessing via manual sigs.
Have you forgotten the main theme of these message board, “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973?” This is supposed to be a non-ignorant message board. I don’t want to put James Otto Sweet Heart on ignore because she may have something valuable to say and putting on her ignore is being ignorant. There’s always something you can learn from another poster. Therefore, in my opinion, the ignore function should be abolished.
As for her signature, I think it would be much less annoying if she didn’t take up so much space in the course of typing her signature. Right now she does this:
God bless you always!!!
Holy
It would be better if she did this instead:
(type message here)
God bless you always,
Holly
If she can make it less distracting, take up less place, and make it less noticeable, like Shodan’s signature, it won’t be nearly as annoying. I am going to suggest this to her in one of her Pit threads some time in the near future.
I agree, the smiley thing can be annoying. One is certainly enough.
I have never understood why someone, who is convinced something doesn’t exist, allows the mention of that non-existent thing bother them in the least.
Would the sig, “zombie bless you” bother you at all?
I respect you not wanting to put anyone on ignore, but then why do you want to dictate someone’s posting style? Why do you feel you have that right to do that? Just like the “quarry” situation we had awhile back, we agreed someone should have the right to do their thing, as long as it’s within the rules. Things like this fix themselves if people will just let it happen on its own. If the style is enough unpopular, with the lack attention and fuss made over them, then the poster will stop on their own. We don’t need busybodies like you telling other people how to post. That is not the way to solve this kind of issue.
And now you’re suggesting taking away options for everyone. You don’t want to put anyone on ignore and no one else should be able to either. Overbearing.
Actually, you are asking that we rule that a specific construction of text that you single out be declared “witnessing,” and you have not made the case that we should do so.
Despite the presence of an Arabic word that may be translated “witness” in the Shahada is not “witnessing” in the manner that the rules of this message board address. Witnessing is the presentation of an apologia for a belief, generally supported by personal experience. It was this activity, one that evoked arguments from those who did not share those beliefs, that got “witnessing” removed from IMHO and MPSIMS and placed in Great Debates. A simple declaration of a single belief that one holds hardly qualifies under that definition.
If we went with that definition, we would have to consider banning the following sigs from IMHO, MPSIMS, GQ and other fora where I found them, as they relate beliefs that may be challenged by folks who do not hold them:
(Given the number of non-believers who post here, it would only be fair to include a-theistic beliefs in the proscribed sigs.)
This evokes the axiom that no one is totally useless. . . .
That axiom was from a time before the internet. 
One last time - it’s not the merest mention of God that I’m talking about. People mentioning God doesn’t faze me. It’d be hard to live with my Christian wife if it did.
If the poster convincingly held themselves out as sèvitè, it might, yes.
It may surprise some of you youngsters to learn that not everything invented before the internet was rendered obsolete by the internet. 
I finally found an example. Although that one looks a bit like spam.
The point I am trying to make is this: if you do something other people don’t like, you are not automatically a jerk for refusing to accede to their requests. That seems to be the basic premise (and the error) in your argument. The signoff is also not witnessing.
This one is a little more in-your-face, although I think the poster has agreed not to use the smiley faces all the time. The objections are the same and the problem and the solution are the same.
She’s not making a profession of faith. And importantly, if there are lots of types of witnessing, we don’t restrict them all to GD.
We’re not taking votes on this. The ignore function is part of the board software. You can use it if you want, and you’re never obliged to even think about it if you don’t want to.
Cite?
Where in my OP did I mention any specific construction? And subsequently, I mentioned not just sigs, but whole posts too.
If the shahada isn’t witnessing here, then the word is being used wrong on this board.
That’s a narrow definition (that disagrees with the dictionary sense of mere profession of faith). There’s already a word for what you’re talking about, and you just used it - apologia. The kind of thing Liberal used to post. Or maybe you mean proselytizing? Or evangelizing?
Because that’s working so well at keeping religious argument out of the Pit right now?
Because there’s an equivalency there, suuure…oh, right, “atheism is a religion”, yes, that’s new.
And only one of those sigs comes close to atheist witnessing, anyway. Anyone who objects to the first 3, just point them at the site banner header…
I’m not saying I object to witnessing outside GD because it makes me want to challenge those beliefs outside GD in any way, BTW. I’d be a very weak atheist if a “God bless you” affected my nonbelief to the extent I just had to debate right there and then to regain my composure.
Nope. It’s an American-based board and the definition I gave is the one that has the widest currency in the U.S. It may have different or narrower meanings elsewhere, (although I have had a number of conversations in Britain and with Brits where they used it in the way that we have used it on this board).
The word witness has a number of separate and related meanings, but if you wish to use “dictionary” definitions, then we should close down IMHO and MPSIMS as they are filled with people providing witness (testimony) to feelings, experiences, and beliefs on all manner of topics.
Can I have some of that straw man you’ve built? I know some folks who could use it to provide bedding for their goats. I made no claim that atheism was a religion, only that we extend the same privileges and prohibitions regarding beliefs to those who have them and those who do not. Single statements of belief are not witnessing and are not actionable in regard to forum placement, regardless whether or not they are religious.
I never said you did.
What I pointed out was that the rule regarding witnessing was instituted to move the debates that were actually already occurring over witness type posts out of other fora and into Great Debates where they could, in fact, be debated. No one (in their right mind) is going to debate a sig every time they see it.
Exactly. So there is no reason to prohibit religious expressions in sigs, since they are unlikely to provoke debates in other fora.
The only thing to learn from some posters is that they will never have anything to say that isn’t vapid, vacuous, insipid, and/or inane. She’s definitely one of those cases.
Since this is not The BBQ Pit, let’s refrain from personal attacks on other posters in this forum.
Thank you for this. I tried Greasemonkey, but found and even easier add-on called FoxReplace. It won’t replace text with no text, so instead “God bless you…” comes out as something else of my choosing. It also won’t recognize smilies, so I’m stuck with those.
WARNING: If you quote a post that has been altered by this add-on it will display the altered text, so you could possibly violate board rules if you’re not careful. You’ll need to disable this app before quoting.
OK, so I got my answer - religious sigs =/= witnessing, so say the Mods. Close the thread if you like.