Valete, Vox Imperatoris

[leander]

@Shodan

For me, it is part and parcel of my whole persona on the SDMB. There are a number of Dopers - not all - who are offended at the mere presence of conservative opinion on this message board. No worries - they tend to be the kind of whiny little pussies who it is the most fun to debate, both because they often are inexperienced in confronting arguments from any point of view other than those of their cohorts, and because of the entertaining little tantrums they throw when they wind up receiving what they were rather hoping to dish out.

It will be a good day when they finally ban your ass for trolling.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Polerius

Since the current policy is to allow such signoffs, and some people don’t care if they piss off people with their signoffs, it seems to me that the only way to fix this is for everyone who is annoyed by these to start using an inane/annoying signoff.

If there are enough people involved in this effort (particularly some prolific posters), all the threads in all the forums will be filled with inane/annoying signoffs, and, I assume, at some point, the PTB will ban them.

Who’s with me?

Δεν μπορώ να σκεφθώ μιαν ευφυή προσυπογραφή
Polerius

Me! Me! Now, I just have to think of something pithy and sign-off worthy.

Suck it, losers!
featherlou

(Maybe I’ll work on it some more.)

[Inner_Stickler]

The best course of action when you find yourself surrounded by the uncouth and unwashed masses is simply to ignore them. And if that doesn’t work, start bashing heads in with a fencepost.

Yours in Christ,
Emily Post

[Petrobey_Mavromihalis]

@Polerius

Δεν μπορώ να σκεφθώ μιαν ευφυή προσυπογραφή
Polerius

Try harder then! (Well played)
Faite skata malakas,
Petrobey

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Vox Imperatoris

Voice is also the category into which “active” and “passive” fall.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

Too rich. Just too rich.

How’s that brilliant-pedantic-phenom thing going for you, Voxy?

@pedescribe

I’ve cooled down some, but I still reflexivly rebut people who say Latin is a dead language. Because it’s not!

“Dead language” has a specific meaning as a technical term in the field of linguistics, and Latin not only fits that meaning to a T, it is probably the archetypical dead language, serving as a shining example of dead languages for all other dead and dying languages to emulate.

@Sailboat

Secondly, I honestly don’t see how a one or two line signoff could be more distracting, or more superfluous, than the “Quick reply to this post” button attached to each and every post, despite the fact that there’s ALSO a quick reply box at the bottom of each thread AND a regular reply button. Nobody complains about those.

That’s because they’re a board feature, and they’re on every post by everyone, looking exactly the same in each iteration, and therefore nothing more than background noise. Might as well complain about the color blue or the “report this post” icon.

Your analogies to quick reply buttons, postage stamps and bar codes are absurd, because those things all repeat themselves on everything of their respective classes (every post by everyone, every letter from everyone, or every item in a store, respectively). Not to mention that they all serve an actual function, other than deliberately pissing people off (which I thought fell under the no-trolling rule, but apparently if enough people troll, the mods will just throw up their hands and say “We don’t feel like doing anything”). If “Valete, Vox Imperatoris” were on every single post by every single Doper, every single time, and it served some functoin (you could click on it to get to the relevant poster’s email address, for example), there would probably be no objection.

And there are the other issues: it impedes the flow of conversation, which the Quick Reply buttons don’t because they’re not in the flow of conversation; it treats this medium like letter-writing when it’s really more like, well, a conversation. The way we go back-and-forth in small groups is much more like a water cooler chat (albeit a long, slow one) than a series of mailed (or even e-mailed) correspondences. If somebody said “Valete, Vox Imperatoris” after every single conversational turn at the water cooler, pretty soon people would be bludgeoning them to death with the three-hole punch. The difference here is that only the boss has access to the three-hole punch, and he’s already walked by the cooler, observed the irritating behavior, and went, “Ah, fuck it, I just want some coffee.”

@Polerius

Who’s with me?

Me.

(“Bean and Cheese, Burrito” gave me by far the biggest laugh of the night. Kudos, RaftPeople!)

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Sapo]

@Stink Fish Pot

Choke on it,
SFP

Be careful, that sounds like a threat.

ladillatus est,
Sapo

[Hostile_Dialect]

Yes.

Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist

[Stratocaster]

@Sr_Siete

Well, I’m sorry, but I still see how it could be necessary:

“You sent me a letter saying that you would have it solved by Wednesday.”
“I never sent such letter!”
“Yes you did! Look! Here it is, signed by you! Here, under your name!”

That’s a remote possibility? Sure, but important enough that we still sign letters today and signatures are still functional. You disagree? Well, don’t sign anything ever again! But as long as I still see it as a necessary convention, I’m intellectually unable to consider it an error.

Yes, I do think you’re grasping at straws. I think signing letters is a quaint vestige of a long-gone age when the entire letter was written by hand, and it generally serves no real purpose. And your hypothetical still ignores the fact that there’s 3 of the same name on the page, even if a signature somehow made the letter official.

No need to respond. I have reached my critical conclusion: Some redundant names rub you the wrong way, some do not. This reaction seems to lead you to conclude how arbitrary they are, and whether or not there is any real, common use for them. I’m not saying you’re doing this dishonestly, in order to appear consistent. But your answers make no sense–they focus on some, but not all, of the names and on remote circumstances that do not apply to most letters actually written.

I will therefore leave this evidence to the Senate for a vote. I have no further questions.

[Stratocaster]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I’m still trying to figure out what you mean by the name being in the header on a business letter. Where’s the name? On the letterhead, perhaps? Isn’t that relatively uncommon in the business world?

I used to do clerical in a variety of settings and have transcribed a fair amount of letters for business people in different fields and, in the vast majority of cases, the letterhead contains the name of business and contact information. The letter writer’s name is in the signature block at the bottom of the page. At the top of the page is the recipient’s name and address block along with a salutation. At most, the letter writer’s name would show up twice on the page, both in the signature block (one handwritten signature and one typed name and title).

Can you clarify what you mean?

Sure. Like here. Maybe header’s the wrong word. But at the top of the letter (below the company logo stuff, if someone is using that kind of stationary) the recipient’s name and address are typed out. Down below is the signature, below which the name is typed out again. This is standard business letter format, or at least the one used in the few thousand I’ve seen at my work.

[Sr_Siete]

@Stratocaster

No need to respond. I have reached my critical conclusion: Some redundant names rub you the wrong way, some do not. This reaction seems to lead you to conclude how arbitrary they are, and whether or not there is any real, common use for them. I’m not saying you’re doing this dishonestly, in order to appear consistent. But your answers make no sense–they focus on some, but not all, of the names and on remote circumstances that do not apply to most letters actually written.

I’m sorry that you think that, but I’ll answer anyway: I do honestly think that the three-name form for business letters makes sense, and I’m not saying this out of pigheadedness.

Allow me to reiterate: The letterhead indicates the author, the handwritten signature verifies legally the author and the clearly written name accompanying the handwritten signature clarifies the signal. That last one, I concede, is not as vital as the other two, but there’s still a rational reson behind it.I really think that those are the reasons for having them in the form in the first place and why they still exist nowadays.

You may disagree, although I still can’t see why, and you are, therefore, free to write business letters any way you feel better, but I see the convention as useful and therefore won’t see nothing wrong with it.

Now, I don’t see that the repetition of a name follows any function, and that’s why I call it bad form. I may be completely wrong, of course, but at least concede that I’m not being arbitrary in my reasoning.

[sailor]

@Polerius

For those who proposed the “ignore list” solution:
It doesn’t work, because when someone quotes him, you still see the stupid Valete, Vox Imperatoris.
Gamisou,
Polerius

I find myself stripping the signatures when I respond to posts with signatures because I do not want to contribute to the clutter.

Que les den por culo.
Rita (la cantaora)

[Stratocaster]

@Sr_Siete

Now, I don’t see that the repetition of a name follows any function, and that’s why I call it bad form. I may be completely wrong, of course, but at least concede that I’m not being arbitrary in my reasoning.

Sorry, I can’t. The third name on a business letter–even if I accept your other notions, which I don’t–is redundant. If someone wants to confirm the signer when the signature is illegible, he need only look to the header. The third sig is not “less vital”; it’s completely unnecessary. Hence my conclusion that redundant names only seem to bug you some of the time.

BTW, in case you missed it earlier, I am fine with the 3 names. Following this convention is both permissive of redundancies and completely inoffensive to me. Message board posts with short signatures are equally inoffensive to me, and in some instance have a certain appeal.

[ivan_astikov]

I’m gonna wade right in on this one and say that it’s not big, it’s not clever, it’s not cool and it’s not even annoying to me. It’s just plain silly!

Hair-dryer

Dairy Farmer

[crypto]

@Sapo

Be careful, that sounds like a threat.

ladillatus est,
Sapo

Not my intent, but to keep things above board I’ll change my new, annoying but necessary sig to

[FONT=“Comic Sans MS”]Czy mówisz po angielsku?
Stink Fish Pot[/FONT]

[Sr_Siete]

@Stratocaster

Sorry, I can’t. The third name on a business letter–even if I accept your other notions, which I don’t–is redundant. If someone wants to confirm the signer when the signature is illegible, he need only look to the header. The third sig is not “less vital”; it’s completely unnecessary. Hence my conclusion that redundant names only seem to bug you some of the time.

Well, I disagree, repetition is not necessarily redundancy. In this case, I don’t think somebody got drunk one day and said: “Hey! Let’s repeat the name again in this letter! It will be a blast!”, but that it came out of the need to make a handwritten signature more easily legible, hence it follows a function: signal clarification.

At least that’s how I see it. If it the third name means nothing for you feel free to argue against its inclusion as much as you want, just like I’m doing with the redundancy of signature here.

[Stratocaster]

@Sr_Siete

Well, I disagree, repetition is not necessarily redundancy. In this case, I don’t think somebody got drunk one day and said: “Hey! Let’s repeat the name again in this letter! It will be a blast!”, but that it came out of the need to make a handwritten signature more easily legible, hence it follows a function: signal clarification.

I don’t care what the motivation was, it’s still redundant. It is exactly as functional as the sig in a post, which lets you know who the post is from–see? it’s functional, too–without having to raise your eyes. Just like the third name in a business letter. This is not subjective, ISTM. It matters not whether the third instance “means nothing to me.” It’s an issue of fact: the third name serves no purpose that the first name could not accommodate. It is, therefore, redundant. Finally, this redundancy does not seem to bother you, so I have to assume that it’s not the existence of the superfluous name per se that bugs you. It’s some other aesthetic issue, I suppose.

[Sr_Siete]

@Stratocaster

I don’t care what the motivation was, it’s still redundant. It is exactly as functional as the sig in a post, which lets you know who the post is from–see? it’s functional, too–without having to raise your eyes. Just like the third name in a business letter. This is not subjective, ISTM. It matters not whether the third instance “means nothing to me.” It’s an issue of fact: the third name serves no purpose that the first name could not accommodate. It is, therefore, redundant. Finally, this redundancy does not seem to bother you, so I have to assume that it’s not the existence of the superfluous name per se that bugs you. It’s some other aesthetic issue, I suppose.

I still disagree: I still think that the function of the name accompanying the signature is not to remind us of the author, but to clarify what the handwritten signature is saying. The repetition of the name in a post has no such function, or any other I can see, and is therefore redundant.

Not hat I expect to convince you by saying again what I’ve said several times before, just pointing out that your arguments are not convincing me, and if you do find a convincing argument against the third signature, that will only manage to make me see the formal structure of a business letter as wrong and stop applying it, not to start tolerating sign offs.

[Stratocaster]

@Sr_Siete

I still disagree: I still think that the function of the name accompanying the signature is not to remind us of the author, but to clarify what the handwritten signature is saying.

A clarification that is completely superfluous, given the name already provided in the header.

The repetition of the name in a post has no such function, or any other I can see, and is therefore redundant.

It tells you who posted, without your having to scroll up if you didn’t mentally register the name before reading the post. Same as the third name in a business letter.

[Shodan]

@Sr Siete

But please, I don’t want you to get the idea that the sig/no sig struggle comes down to an aesthetic choice or as a matter of opinion.

No, an opinion is exactly what it is. You are attempting an argument from authority - I shouldn’t sign off because you say it is wrong. But you have no credentials, and there is no reason to believe you over anyone else.

The only authority who can speak definitively on this subject are the mods. They have said, quite clearly and specifically, that my sign off is acceptable. Ergo, insofar as an argument from authority is possible, I am correct and you are not.

@Critical1

youre right, its not like snapping ones gum or slurping soup, its like every time you finish a sentence you say, “regards, Shodan” only try that in real life and tell me its not irritating as fuck

I don’t say it every time I finish a sentence. I sign my posts with it, once per post. It is rather like (as mentioned above) signing a letter, or saying “Good-bye” before I hang up the phone.

Regards,
Shodan

[Cat_Whisperer]

@Shodan

<snip>
I don’t say it every time I finish a sentence. I sign my posts with it, once per post. It is rather like (as mentioned above) signing a letter, or saying “Good-bye” before I hang up the phone.

Regards,
Shodan

No, it’s not - it’s like saying good-bye after every sentence you say in a phone conversation.

それをの敗者吸いなさい
featherlou