Bet you won’t find any child talking about pan-fried semen. Semen cookery & consumption is adult business.
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
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).
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.
And good evening to you, too, sir!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
Maybe he’ll be willing to post the page in The Elements of Style when Strunk and White tackled the issue.
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?
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.
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?
First, let me quote myself so my opinion of your posting goes on the record again (bolding added for clarity)…
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.
Keep telling yourself that. It keeps you above it all.
Choke on it,
SFP
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.
No, it’s true. Your weenieness is amusing.
Have you ever been outdoors?