I agree completely (and I got a big chuckle out of how An Gadai phrased it). Let’s give this young man a break.
I’m reminded of when I was 14, and I heard a radio interview with a writer. Someone called in to ask a question, and the radio announcer/interviewer told him quite pointedly to turn his radio off while he was calling (feedback or something). The announcer was about to hang up on the caller, when he realized he might be quite young. He asked his age, was told, I think, 14 or so, and the announcer became apologetic, and said, “Ah yes, great question!”. Anyway, I really felt for the kid – I know it might seem silly, but this was a poignant moment which stuck in my head for 25 years.
I know that VI can hold his own (sort of) with the “big guys” of the SDMB, so he can certainly take some fun-poking. But let’s not waste our own time on getting hung up on the little things.
This is predicated on the assumption that what you want my posts to look like is important. It’s not.
It’s not, even to the point that your assumption that I am doing it to piss you off is wrong. Whether you like it or not, and whether it pisses you off or not, is not exactly something that keeps me up nights. This isn’t a problem that needs to be resolved - it’s a whine that needs to be mocked.
You might want to dial back a bit on the ego, punkin - the notion that I should form my posts based on how the pettier minds of the SDMB will react is a bit of exaggeration that does not become you.
Like I said earlier, if this is the worst thing you have to complain about, you need a better class of problems.
I think this all boils down to these posters don’t give a fat flying fuck what others (no matter how large or small that “others” is defined) think of their posting style. It seems mods have begrudgingly allowed it. Continuing to bring out style guides and grammatical rules isn’t going to help. Pissing, whining, moaning and calling names (or any combination thereof) isn’t going to help. Mocking parody won’t help, especially given the piss poor level of mocking parody shown here. Getting on with the day and finding something more tractable to piss, moan and whine about might help,
This must be a new definition of the word obvious I’m unaware of. The line quoted was:
In this case, authority doesn’t mean someone in charge or wielding power, but rather an expert in a field. Thus, “As world-famous PhD in Western Standards of Written Communication, Dr. John P. Blowhard, wrote in his book Protocols of Modern Message Board Communication, ‘Signatures are unnecessary and redundant and should never be used.’ This proves I’m right!” would be an Argument from Authority (AKA Appeal to Authority) fallacy.
So, I think we know the answer to Lord Ashtar’s question. It is “no.”
I think that says more about you than the 13 year old boys.
Do you realize that the point of this exercise is to use two-line signatures?
The point, Speedy Gonzalez, is that it’s fallacious because you’re not a PhD in Western Standards of Written Communication and you haven’t written (or cited) a book about Protocols of Modern Message Board Communication.
Close. It’s fallacious because having a PhD in Western Standards of Written Communication or having written a book on Protocols of Modern Message Board Communication does not mean that Dr. Blowhard’s assertion that “signatures should never be used” is necessarily correct or that it “proves” the claimant’s position. Dr. Blowhard may very well be correct, and having considerable expertise in the relevant field means he’s more likely to be correct than the average Joe, but his statements should not be taken as absolute Gospel.
No, Hostile Dialect, read our conversation again: Q.E.D believes, wrongly, that any sort of appeal to authority is fallacious, and that, therefore, even if I had the PhD and the book, that would count be “argument from authority” and therefore invalid.
That’s fair, but you must admit that you don’t have the PhD or the book.
Now, I happen to agree with you. But it’s plain to me that you can’t argue from a position of universal message-board agreement; the very fact that this MB allows the signatures is a devastating argument against that.
Not only that, but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the one making the claim can be accurately described as being “such a nice guy”.
But there is no such book! And, although I did take a bunch of college courses that dealt with McLuhan, the medium and the message and all that noise, that hardly makes me a PhD.
That’s why I’m pointing out my position with an argument (that it’s unnecessary redundancy, and redundancy goes against clarity of the message) and letting you all decide if it’s convincing enough for you, and not in any way appealing to neither authority nor expertise. That’s the point when the thread derailed into a “what does argument from authority mean?” discussion.
I still don’t understand why we can’t just keep the sigs in the sig section. I don’t retype my username right under my username because it’s already there for anyone that wants to read it.
Because the signatures only appear automatically once per page (something to do with causing too much streess in the servers), and the pro-signature-ers want them in every post.