This, indeed, is what I suggested.
I thought, in informal register, that it was “your guys’” , as in “Could you move your guys’ stuff out of here so we can put in the new copy machine?”
That’s Yankee talk. I was doing American.
“Yankee” =/= “American”?
Hey, waitaminnit, you damn secessionist! :mad:
I think five pages of argument with frequent use of “fuck off” and sarcasm justifies my use of the term “outrage.” I mean, considering there’s almost no content to the original complaint – “you’re using an older style I don’t personally use myself,” basically, only outrage could drive the discussion so long.
As far as mine being the most annoying because I don’t add “sincerely,” or whatnot, how am I to weigh your opinion against, for example, the opinion of Orbifold and Charlie Tan:
Personally I always thought that appending my moniker had some small value 1) in making it clear I had finished my thoughts and not been cut off or misposted; 2) by NOT qualifying the signoff with “sincerely,” or “outragedly yours,” or whatever, I thought I was allowing for some interpretation on the part of the reader – depending on the preceding text. Sometimes I felt like abruptly ending “Sailboat” added force to my point, at other times it seemed to be friendly and routine. I do gather from this thread that people are not interested in such subtlety, that people do not want to interpret anything, that people apparently do not like anyone else to have his or her own style, regardless of the adulation heaped upon certain posters, and that a large block of posters apparently like to dictate minor matters of style and content in the posts of others.
But it’s moot because you’ve won.
Never mind that I have a retarded cousin, and routinely protest the use of “retard” as an insult; “retard” is okay according to SMDB consensus, even though it’s far more damaging than “Sailboat” at the end of a few posts.
Never mind that people feel free to repeat overdone 4chan memes as if it’s content, or post “This” as the only original word in their post, and get credit for adding “content” to the conversation. At least we’ve stomped flat those damned signatures, especially the short ones.
It’s not necessarily that I WANT people to express their idiosyncrasies, it’s just that I value free, open, and honest human communication. Human beings have idiosyncrasies. Any forum which allows them to be themselves will, by definition, allow their idiosyncrasies. Most idiosyncrasies are harmless, and accepting someone, idiosyncrasies and all, is part of what makes us human. Formalizing the SDMB, or any communication medium meant to foster human relationships, to the point where people feel constrained in how they communicate will harm the free flow of ideas and human discourse. We have formal communication methods, peer reviewed papers, legal documents, etc. but a message board is none of those things. When people stop accepting each other, warts and all, communication starts breaking down. My view is that tolerance is better than restriction. Sure it means I have to put up with things that may irritate me at times, but in exchange for my tolerance, people tolerate me. It’s a karma thing.
I’m a pretty live and let live kind of guy with a healthy respect for the wisdom expressed in the cliche “variety is the spice of life.” What I’m seeing on the SDMB now is a trend where people are starting to demand others accede to their view of how to communicate, not just on the big things(like using a common language and refraining from personal attacks), but even on the little things. Very early in the history of this board a poster spoke out vehemently about their view that others were misusing the concept of a list of items. No proper list, this person contended, could have less than three items. The reaction to this demand was to make it a joke. This person’s view of what constituted a list was not enshrined into the SDMB’s rules. It was generally accepted that people could construct their lists any way they chose and this person, and any who felt similarly, could get over it.
Not that long ago, another poster began a campaign to have the board change its default font to verdana, because it was easier for this poster to read. Again, this was met with resistance because there was no general argument for the change, just a poster or two who felt it would be better. This was resolved in a much better way IMHO, by the poster in question taking matters into their own hand and modifying their browser to translate the SDMB into verdana for their own views. Instead of imposing their view on everyone, that person became responsible for tailoring their own experience.
I believe this was a better resolution because instead of saying “I don’t like the way you do things, you have to change” it became “I don’t like the way you do things, I’ll take the burden of re-ordering things to my preferred way upon myself.” A script could be written in a person’s web browser which could strip out a “Regards, Shodan” a “Daniel”, a “Tripler”, “Love, yams!!”, “Jim”, “-XT”, “Sailboat”, or a “Enjoy, Steven” or the ignore function could be used if the person felt the use of a sign off overshadowed any content those posters may provide. There are tools available to those offended by those posters idiosyncrasies. What I don’t get is why those who are offended seem entitled to have others accommodate their preferences instead of taking it upon themselves to ensure they don’t see the offending sign-offs.
To use the marriage analogy pitched further up in the thread. Suppose a husband came to his wife one day and said “I hate the way you fold towels. You must fold towels the way I want you to.” The wife replied “The way I fold towels works just fine. They fit in the cabinet and they don’t fall over. I’m comfortable with my way of folding towels and I see no good reason to change it.” Now the husband has two recourses. He can get over it, or he can end the marriage over it. Or he has a third option. He can fold the towels himself. Forcing an otherwise good marriage to the breaking point over how to fold a towel seems petty to me, but I don’t get to decide what other people’s priorities are.
Like the wife in the story, I’m being asked to change something I see as perfectly acceptable for reasons I’m having trouble understanding. Given the moderator warning upthread, “asked” may be the wrong word here. If this is the level to which the SDMB is dictating the form of personal communication then you’re probably right. This isn’t the board for me. At least not anymore.
Enjoy,
Steven
What exactly am I supposed to enjoy about your posts? You’ve just stated a mundane opinion in a matter-of-fact way–am I supposed to now leap for joy because I’ve been bestowed the honor of reading your verbiage? I don’t understand your sig at all.
In my opinion his sig is far more egregious than Shodan’s, for that very reason. “Regards” can be an appropriate ending to almost anything that is said, whereas “Enjoy” conveys specific meaning and intent with regard to whatever is supposed to be enjoyed. Saying “Enjoy” when there’s nothing there to enjoy is as jolting, stupid and incongruous as saying “Regrets” when there’s nothing to regret or “I’m sorry” when there’s nothing to be sorry for.
Ok, let’s make a deal. Starving Artist, you change your username to “Self-Righteous Reactionary” and I’ll stop using the sign-off. Then neither of us will experience cognitive dissonance when reading each others posts. This offer is only available for a limited time.
Enjoy,
Steven
Did someone piss in your fucking Cheerio’s or what? You’ve been a pretty big goddamn dickhead in this topic, jumping on everyone who seems to wonder what the big hooha is about a typed signature.
I don’t get what the big thing is either. Who really cares? What, they annoy you? There’s an ignore function. If they started banning everything that annoyed everyone else, soon this board would be filled with nothing but huge whiners complaining about something or other. At least until another whiner is annoyed by them and whining is banned.
Seriously, if people have problems with others typing out sigs (and I’m talking about one line or a name–not three or four lines like Vox) or sigs that say different things (a la Tripler, who seemed to be okay by the rule, a la Czarcasm), then I envy your problems.
Who cares? What a stupid and petty thing to get upset about.
I just never got it…but for you, personally, I don’t understand why you have to suddenly go on the defensive toward everyone (which you’ve seemed to do so far in this topic) in here who even hints at a “who cares about this issue?” post.
I don’t care about this issue, either. Are you now going to reply to me with a post about why it’s so important that you or people should? Geez…
Wait… a bunch of whiny, weak-minded pussies got their panties in a knot because some posters add two lines at the end of their posts, and now the mods have disallowed traditional signatures? WTF? WTF is wrong with you people?! What sort of anal-retentive control-freak do you have to be for this to bother you so much? Gah!
Where did this come from?
I have the signature I was using in every post:
“Valete,
Vox Imperatoris”
and then also the extra line and my Last.fm and Pandora profiles:
“Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
Last.fm Pandora”
that I put in my sig line and only posted once per thread. Where do get “typing out 3 or 4 lines per post” from that? I was using the same “<Valediction>, <Name>” format as everyone else.
I don’t get it either. It doesn’t bother me, but on the other hand, I don’t know why someone would bother to do it. As mentioned many times before, your identity is clear at the head of the post. I don’t see the point in:
quizot
Fuck you.
Regards,
guizot.
It just came to me that I seem to remember a time when the Administrators requested that we refrain from using our sig lines more than once in a thread due to bandwidth problems. Being a good, obedient poster, I dropped mine altogether in an effort to keep the SDMB on track. I hope someone else remembers that request just so I know I’m not as insane as I think I am.
You did not answer his question. What are we supposed to “enjoy”. Are we supposed to “enjoy” the fact that you posted? Are we supposed to “enjoy” the opinion you present? Are we supposed to “enjoy” your general presence?
Please clarify. Thanks.
This is why I only use my sig once every thread.
I have been wondering this myself. It reads especially obnoxious when he’s brushing someone off.
That’s how I understood the issue as well. Being that I rarely used the preformatted “User CP-based” sig, it was never an issue for me. IIRC, it was also borne from some using their “CP” sigs to advocate a charity or business or such–it was okay to do, but doing it multiple times on one page was kind of a drag on hamsters.
Tripler
So this sig is okay multiple times on a page, but not ↓ that ↓ one.
To the OP: you’re too sensitive about this.
Scratching my nutsack,
Ralph
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is not the very sig line that prompted the request. Thanks for confirming my limited sanity. Why didn’t this reply include the sig line that would not be okay per the mods? The very long one that I highlighted to be included in the quote? Why can’t this perfectly wonderful message board that I love perform in the way I expect? What did I do wrong? My reply makes no sense without including that long sig line and I can’t make it happen. Help me.