Not yet.
SB requests us to take note of the rules and decide ourselves.
Perhaps a better option would be to make it possible for the ‘offended’ to simply NOT SEE signatures at all, like the button that allows members to see a home page sans commercial posts.
Hmmm… That could be handy for when you’re on a smart phone too.
Save some much needed screen space.
I’m not sure which signatures on BLF trigger the ‘offended’.
But as long as they’re not attacking or flaming people, i don’t think it’s justified to deem it inappropriate.
But then still, there are limits to what is acceptable.
Quoting John 3:16 would be over the limit i.m.o., because it can be taken as implying judgement over a large group of people (rather than salvation of a not so large group of people (although interpretations vary about the ultimate size of that group of people)
Quoting a bit of Biblical theology about Christ being the Light (and the darkness not comprehending it (depending on the translation)) does no such thing.
Your signature, Dave, can be considered problematic too by today’s ‘feelings over facts’ standards.
My posts here in this topic can be considered problematic too, i guess…
Crazy times.
Someone said:
“1984 (the book by George Orwell) is not a warning, it’s a manual.”