# Valete, Vox Imperatoris **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 22, 2009, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419 "2009-01-22T06:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/141 "2009-01-23T22:20:35Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > Ah yes, the forum for “real grownups”, where we talk about pan fried semen and how to wipe one’s ass. Bet you won’t find any child talking about pan-fried semen. Semen cookery & consumption is adult business. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/142 "2009-01-23T23:05:02Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > I’m right in both theory and practice. The fact that you, and a small but vocal handful of others, are letting something so trivial irritate you so much proves your weenieness. Most people don’t let something so insignificant affect them so deeply. Are you saying, oh Peter Perfect, that nothing trivial bothers you? Who are you to determine what’s trivial? You are not right in theory or practice. Do you even realize how inconsistent you are? You claim this is a trivial issue, and yet you continue to post in this thread defending the behavior. If it’s so insignificant, why not spend your time in other threads, or scratching your ass, or splitting the atom? Just because this particular behavior doesn’t bother you doesn’t make you a stand up citizen. Get over yourself. Affecting me deeply? How do you figure that? I don’t see why this is so difficult to understand. So for you, I’ll type slower. There is a place in your profile for a signature. Put it there. If folks want to see sigs, they can; if not, they can choose not to. He has been told that this particular habit annoys. To continue to shove a sig in each posting to force everyone to read it smacks of arrogance and anti-social behavior. He has a right to do it according to Ed, but Ed can’t force me (or anyone else) to like it. Seems to me that you are bothered by people bothered by this forced signature issue. How trivial is _ **that** _? :dubious: “Your attention please. There is a tractor in the parking lot with its lights on. West Virginia license plate, E-I-E-I-O” - PA Announcer, Pitt Stadium ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/143 "2009-01-23T23:16:12Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > You will write down your Hancock to make it more difficult for somebody else to use one of your letters, but you will probably not repeat the information that is already there. It’s still form following function, not some arbitrary convention. Not following you. Every business letter I ever signed had my name 3 times: in the header (with my address), typed under my signature, and my signature. I thought your point was that a signature was superfluous since in a post someone’s name is already apparent. Someone asked if you felt the same way about business letters. And I’m here to tell you that standard business letters “repeat the information that is already there.” Twice. And it’s as arbitrary a convention as I can think of (and completely unoffensive, IMO). ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/144 "2009-01-23T23:17:51Z")
Sincere question for those that use it; if you routinely post in a thread, would it be an acceptable compromise to not use it every single time? Because I do think that’s more of the [very slight] issue for myself, not that I would want you to stop completely. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/145 "2009-01-23T23:17:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > FWIW, I protested when first the rule against signoffs and sigs was - resurrected? Started to be enforced? Not sure what its status was before. And then was pleased to be informed (hi, **Stratocaster**!) that the Powers That Be had reconsidered and allowed it. I think that was rather nice of them. I have been doing it for a long time, and it is pleasant to be heard. And good evening to you, too, sir! ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/146 "2009-01-23T23:26:34Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Not following you. Every business letter I ever signed had my name 3 times: in the header (with my address), typed under my signature, and my signature. I thought your point was that a signature was superfluous since in a post someone’s name is already apparent. Someone asked if you felt the same way about business letters. And I’m here to tell you that standard business letters “repeat the information that is already there.” Twice. And it’s as arbitrary a convention as I can think of (and completely unoffensive, IMO). **Sr Siete** seems to have access to some secret guide to posting on message boards that has not been shared with the rest of us. But what he says must be true as his post his of course his cite. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/147 "2009-01-23T23:27:10Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Not following you. Every business letter I ever signed had my name 3 times: in the header (with my address), typed under my signature, and my signature. I thought your point was that a signature was superfluous since in a post someone’s name is already apparent. Someone asked if you felt the same way about business letters. And I’m here to tell you that standard business letters “repeat the information that is already there.” Twice. And it’s as arbitrary a convention as I can think of (and completely unoffensive, IMO). I would argue that writing your name just before your signature (Which many people makes illegible) makes a lot of sense, and therefore follows a function. Just like the signature itself has the function of validating the document. But yes, if you actually believe that any part on any document you are writing is superfluous, you shouldn’t do it unless you can be convinced otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/148 "2009-01-23T23:32:27Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > **Sr Siete** seems to have access to some secret guide to posting on message boards that has not been shared with the rest of us. But what he says must be true as his post his of course his cite. Oh, come on! I’m not just making assertions out of thin air, I’m explaining them! I’m not saying that you shouldn’t use signatures just because I say so, but because they are redundant in this case. I don’t think I’ve been unreasonable about it, have I? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/149 "2009-01-23T23:38:08Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > You are not right in theory or practice. Do you even realize how inconsistent you are? You claim this is a trivial issue, and yet you continue to post in this thread defending the behavior. If it’s so insignificant, why not spend your time in other threads, or scratching your ass, or splitting the atom? Just because this particular behavior doesn’t bother you doesn’t make you a stand up citizen. I’m posting in this thread because it gives me something to do between taking calls from idiot clients and because I find your recreational outrage at two lines of text amusing. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/150 "2009-01-23T23:42:48Z")
> [@faithfool](#): > > Sincere question for those that use it; if you routinely post in a thread, would it be an acceptable compromise to not use it every single time? Because I do think that’s more of the [very slight] issue for myself, not that I would want you to stop completely. Tell you what, if you see my sign off more than about four times on a single page of a thread, tell me to shut up. I can’t think of very many topics on which I have more than about four posts worth of intelligent comments to make about. If I’m posting every few minutes it’s because I think I’m being witty, or because I’m obsessing over a particular topic. History has shown me that the former is rarely true and the latter is not healthy, so that should take care of the situation in my case. Fair enough? Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/151 "2009-01-23T23:44:31Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > I would argue that writing your name just before your signature (Which many people makes illegible) makes a lot of sense, and therefore follows a function. Just like the signature itself has the function of validating the document. > > But yes, if you actually believe that any part on any document you are writing is superfluous, you shouldn’t do it unless you can be convinced otherwise. I think it’s a given it’s superfluous. But I’ll continue doing it because it’s an expected convention, and I am not offended in the least by this blatant act of unmitigated redundancy. But back to the first question. Would _you_ eliminate such redundancies in a business letter _you_ were sending out, in the interest of eliminating the clutter of names you seem to take such offense to? Are _you_ annoyed when you receive such a disagreeable missive? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Ashtar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ea924/32.png) [@Lord\_Ashtar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Ashtar)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/152 "2009-01-23T23:45:37Z")
> [@What\_Exit](#): > > **Sr Siete** seems to have access to some secret guide to posting on message boards that has not been shared with the rest of us. But what he says must be true as his post his of course his cite. Maybe he’ll be willing to post the page in _The Elements of Style_ when Strunk and White tackled the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/153 "2009-01-23T23:51:34Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I think it’s a given it’s superfluous. But I’ll continue doing it because it’s an expected convention, and I am not offended in the least by this blatant act of unmitigated redundancy. > > But back to the first question. Would _you_ eliminate such redundancies in a business letter _you_ were sending out, in the interest of eliminating the clutter of names you seem to take such offense to? Are _you_ annoyed when you receive such a disagreeable missive? Well, no, but I’ve already said that I don’t consider the three-name convention neither superfluous nor redundant and the why. You seem to disagree with that, but I am the one receiving the letter here. Now, if after having your name at the top, the name accompanying the signature and said signature you would finish the letter by writing your name an unnecessary fourth time… I wouldn’t be annoyed or offended, like I’m not by the Shodan’s or Vox’s signatures, but i would consider that you are making an error in the structure of your letter, and if that came up in a discussion about the subject I would explain why. That cool with you? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/154 "2009-01-23T23:53:57Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I think it’s obnoxious, but only because it’s in Latin. \ That definitely increases the irritation factor. My eye just moves right over sign-offs in English, reads them and ignores them in a microsecond, but it stops on this sig every single time because I can’t read it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/155 "2009-01-23T23:55:31Z")
> [@Sr\_Siete](#): > > Well, no, but I’ve already said that I don’t consider the three-name convention neither superfluous nor redundant and the why. You seem to disagree with that, but I am the one receiving the letter here. Again, I don’t follow your explanations at all. If I have my name in the header, why do I need a signature or the name beneath the signature? If the signature is illegible, why not look at the name in the header? Why sign it at all? ---
**Author:** ![joyfool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df788c/32.png) [@joyfool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joyfool)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/156 "2009-01-23T23:57:53Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Tell you what, if you see my sign off more than about four times on a single page of a thread, tell me to shut up. I can’t think of very many topics on which I have more than about four posts worth of intelligent comments to make about. If I’m posting every few minutes it’s because I think I’m being witty, or because I’m obsessing over a particular topic. History has shown me that the former is rarely true and the latter is not healthy, so that should take care of the situation in my case. > > Fair enough? > > Enjoy, > Steven First, let me quote myself so my opinion of your posting goes on the record again (bolding added for clarity)… > [@faithfool](#): > > So, in that context, I think some posters feel that way about certain other posters who continue to use their sign off when other options are available. In my own case, **plenty don’t bother me (Daniel and Steven)**, others very rarely (like \*\*Shodan’\*\*s), but some seem like the only reason that it’s there is because it _can_ be. Now I’m okay with that, que sera and all, but I’m not going to ignore the argument regarding them put forth by others or to pretend that they can’t be annoying. If they truly weren’t an issue at all for those that persist despite huge opposition, then in my humble opinion, they’d utilize the signature field as advised once per thread. Now that said, I do think your proposal is fair. But since you typically do as you say anyway (“I can’t think of very many topics on which I have more than about four posts worth of intelligent comments to make about.”), that wasn’t so much what I’m talking about, nor do I think it’s what the OP is either. It’s for those who have a short, say one-line response, _plus_ their sign-off, multiple times in a thread. If someone posts 10 times and the bulk of what they’ve had to say is overshadowed by the cumulative amount of their sign-off, I feel _that_ is the problem. Do you think that’s possible? And ultimately, thanks for replying. I do like hearing from the people who actually use this method, whenever we talk about this subject. That’s how I learned that it was a decades long habit for **LHoD**. ---
**Author:** ![crypto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@crypto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crypto)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/157 "2009-01-24T00:06:08Z")
> [@Lord\_Ashtar](#): > > I’m posting in this thread because it gives me something to do between taking calls from idiot clients and because I find your recreational outrage at two lines of text amusing. Keep telling yourself that. It keeps you above it all. Choke on it, SFP ---
**Author:** ![Sr\_Siete](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Sr\_Siete](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sr_Siete)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/158 "2009-01-24T00:16:46Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Again, I don’t follow your explanations at all. If I have my name in the header, why do I need a signature or the name beneath the signature? If the signature is illegible, why not look at the name in the header? Why sign it at all? I can think of several reasons: there may be more than one signature in a page and the reader will need to know which one belongs to whom, you may work with other people and you want to make sure that you are not signing for somebody else by mistake, the client may need to check several signatures in a hurry… That’s more than enough to make me think that the convention is not arbitrary. Said reasons may not convince you, but they seem reasonable to me and therefore I don’t see it as a formal error. Handwritten signatures also follow a function: they make it more difficult for somebody to forge one of your documents and for the person signing to back off from what it says. ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/159 "2009-01-24T00:19:50Z")
> [@Stink Fish Pot](#): > > Keep telling yourself that. It keeps you above it all. No, it’s true. Your weenieness is amusing. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419/160 "2009-01-24T00:24:21Z")
> [@Q.E.D](#): > > No, it’s true. Your weenieness is amusing. Have you ever been outdoors? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valete-vox-imperatoris/482419.md?page=9)