The signature doesn’t piss me off.
And I’m ok with the people complaining about it.
I’m also ok with the people that are complaining about the people complaining about the signature.
But I’ll tell you what pisses me off: Not enough trombone players with their tits hanging out!
Trombone is fine, but if you’re smart, don’t try it with the accordion, especially if it’s a little chilly.
That’s far enough now,
Malacandra
Ah! No foul then. Feel free to join us at Thanksgiving dinner sometime; sounds like you’d fit right in.
Quoted it pretty selectively, I’d say. While they do indicate that letterheads with return info need not be retyped, the actual example they provide shows a name. As does this one.. And this one. I will concede that one may use letterhead with address info where the lead name is not included in the letterhead (and isn’t then typed out, hanging out there lonely and abandoned without an address to cling to). I’ll concede that completely typed letters (no letterhead) that provide sender address but no name in the header are acceptable. But it is absolutely accepted business practice to type the letters in the format I’ve provided. And I don’t think no-letterhead letters have exactly gone the way of the dodo. Cover letters over resumes, for example, are pretty common and not typically on letterhead. Someone who provides one in the manner outlined in my cites is certainly following accepted protocol. Come now, you must concede this or I’ll fling mashed potatoes at you next Thanksgiving.
No, it’s not a standard. But it certainly provides a function. I’m not saying it comes up everytime I’m in a thread, or that I find it enormously helpful, but the example I used previously was not hypothetical, not for me anyway. I run through a thread, especially when I’m catching up, by scrolling quickly to the next post. If it’s an interesting post and I want to see who wrote it (it often doesn’t register), and if I already scrolled the name off the screen, I have to scroll back. Not needed with a sig.
But this is such a minor benefit, if it is one at all, you might respond. But it is a function. The signature block in a letter may serve a purpose the header does not. But the typed name below the signature–meaning, apart from any “official” air the letter assumes by virtue of being signed–serves no purpose, none, that could not be served by the name in the header (should a dinosaur have prepared the letter in question, following the completely acceptable ancient protocol I provided ;)). It is identical in form and nature–a lead name and a closing name, both the same. If it is unnecessary in a post, why in the world is it necessary in a business letter?
But flow is a stylistic, subjective concern. That doesn’t mean the sig doesn’t serve a purpose, albeit a minor one, just as the closing name in a letter allows you to avoid the horrible strain of lifting your eyes six inches to the top of the page in your hands. My point was, and is, that objecting to sigs in posts because they add no new function ought to apply to the business letters I’ve trotted out. They don’t apparently, and that still seems an inconsistency to me, as well as reflective of a horrible character flaw and a likely tendency toward fascism. 
Yep.
I can’t say I object to the rest of your reasoning–hell, “I do/don’t want to” is half the reason I get out of bed in the morning–but I have to be heard on this one. I would tolerate two-line sign-offs much better if they were done in the privacy of your own bedroom and I didn’t have to see them.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
A
look at me
don’t ask
B
look at me
don’t ask
C
look at me
don’t ask
ad infinitum
And where’s the rest of that poll; id est, how many [del]weenies[/del] people in this thread have a strong opinion in favor of signoffs? If there are, say, three, then twenty would, comparatively speaking, be a large number of weeniepeople. quod erat demonstratum
(And please: I am not a weenie. I am a moronic moose!)
Ex expecto ressurecreation,
PDQ Bach
I think “large” needs to be defined before “large number” can be defined. What do we mean, magnitude? Ordinality? Cardinality? Zero is large compared to a negative billion. One is large compared to a billionth. A billion is only a fraction of a sextillion. Given all this complexity, why don’t we just settle on “large” being “five”.
Hrm…you really don’t have much going on up in that cinder block you call a head, do you?
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
Because some people cannot bear the thought that, for the most part, the world could not care less what they think.
100% of the people in my poll said sign offs were fine. Said poll consisted of [ul][li]The mods, and [*]me.[/ul]On a minor matter like this, everyone else is like people who don’t vote in elections - they may have opinions, even strong ones. But those opinions don’t count. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I think this is funny. 
fixed that for ya!
i’m not really terrible,
yours most humbly,
ivan
Outstanding!
With Deepest Gratitude and a Smile on Her Goofy Face,
Creaky
Because it’s an irritating affectation. And because **Shodan **does it specifically *because *it’s irritating. I’m not sure why you do it.
Unfortunately, by mentioning Shodan, I’m feeding the troll, but what the hell.
Frankly, I think the very fact that this topic generates multiple pages of posts every single time it comes up might be an indicator that it’s annoying. We’re a forum supported by our community- and when you do something which a sizable part of that community finds annoying, it might be time to examine why, exactly, you do it. At least in Shodan’s case, we know he does it to be a jerk and to get a rise out of the other people in his community. Why do you do it?
And, you know, there’s a damn simple way for all of this to be resolved, and I don’t understand why the mods aren’t forcing him to do this- simply include the signature as part of the signature. But by manually typing it out every time, he’s removing our option to ignore his witty little “ta-da” in his every post.
So let’s recap- we’ve got someone who has an annoying habit, who *knows *it’s an annoying habit, and who does his damnedest to make it that annoying habit as hard to ignore as possible. He’s like a guy who holds in his farts until he gets on the bus, whereupon he lets them rip as loudly and publicly as possible, and when asked not to do it says, “But I’m perfectly within my rights to do it!”
That’s what she said.
Attention whoring,
Social ineptituded,
I know but I don’t care,
Hee hee,
All groweds up,
Desperate to differentiate myself,
Newcrasher
Before I go ahead I read this (very long) rant, may I humbly ask: Is it worth the time?
Thank you and kind regards,
With humility,
Jim Nightshade
Don’t put words in my mouth, Bucky.
I never said that I disliked Shodan. 'Cause I don’t. He has some distinctly unlovable traits, but I probably like him better than the other dillweeds that insist on continuing to use these sign-offs. I used him as an example because it was convenient.
If you had bothered to read for comprehension, you would have seen that I don’t object to the sign-offs, per se. I simply think that it’s annoying when a person continues to engage in a behavior that annoys others and benefits no one just because they “can” or they “want to.” It’s immature.
I appreciate the fact that Sailboat has knocked it off. That reflects well on him.
Oom-pah-pah,
GB
I overheard this gem of dialog between a couple to 13ish year old boys once, its been my mission to spread the word ever since.
You’re a Dumas
Whats a Dumas?
It’s French for Dumbass Dumbass
Crit