RE: Pet Peeve - nameless posts

December 30, 2003

I don't recall ever being given a choice to enter my name so it appears next

to my email address, but I created my account years ago, and my name is rather

apparent from my email address itself.

I don't think it's rude to call someone " gloppyglop " if that's what they

enter in that box, or if they leave no other way of ascertaining their name--

that's their own perogative, and it is simply impossible for the responsibility

of

courtesy to lie on the person addressing them rather than on themselves.

That said, I also find it annoying when people give no indication of their

name, because I prefer to address the person-- especially if I'm responding to

more than one person in a given post-- and as said some email addresses

just do not parse well.

I don't think anyone has a *responsiblity* to put their name down, but I

would appreciate it if they did anyway.

December 30, 2003

Judith-

>People, please, PLEASE sign your posts. It doesn't have to be a formal name.

>Just a name readers can use to identify you and your posts.

I'd second that.

-The List Owner

December 30, 2003

Quoting Judith Alta <jaltak@...>:

> Have a pet peeve I'd like to get off my chest.

One of mine is the term " pet peeve. "

> People, please, PLEASE sign your posts. It doesn't have to be a formal

> name.

> Just a name readers can use to identify you and your posts.

Every e-mail I've seen on this list, without exception, has had some sort of

name or handle in the sender field. You're using Outlook Express, so this

should be displayed quite prominently. Why is it necessary to have it in

the body of the post?

--

Berg

bberg@...

December 30, 2003

-

>Why is it necessary to have it in

>the body of the post?

Two reasons, both of which boil down to courtesy. First, often enough the

name in the " from " field is just the email address, which frequently bears

no resemblance to a name. Gloppyglop51@... doesn't readily parse, and

it would arguably be rude to address anyone as " Glop " , or " Gloppyglop " , or

whatever. Second, it facilitates the threading of conversation.

-

December 30, 2003

In a message dated 12/30/03 10:31:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> You'd think so, but having never encountered the name " Masterjohn " before,

> I

> spent a couple of years pondering the significance of " ChrisMaster. "

> For some reason I never noticed that the J wasn't capitalized.

That's pretty funny. It's anglocized Greek for something more like

" Mastroghianis " My grandfather's brother changed his to " Mastrojohn. "

Interestingly,

there is also an Italian family in the US with the same name root

" Mastroiannis " who also changed their name to Masterjohn. If you google

" Masterjohn "

they'll come up.

Chris

December 30, 2003

I am using Outlook 2000. And yes, it gives sender information.

Putting your name at the end of your posts is a common courtesy. A reader

should not have to scroll back to the top of a long message to discover the

sender.

Not everyone has their name show up on the sender line. Only the email

address.

Do you sign your greeting cards, or do you let the recipient get that info

from the return address on the envelope?

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Quoting Judith Alta <jaltak@...>:

> Have a pet peeve I'd like to get off my chest.

One of mine is the term " pet peeve. "

> People, please, PLEASE sign your posts. It doesn't have to be a formal

> name.

> Just a name readers can use to identify you and your posts.

Every e-mail I've seen on this list, without exception, has had some sort of

name or handle in the sender field. You're using Outlook Express, so this

should be displayed quite prominently. Why is it necessary to have it in

the body of the post?

--

Berg

bberg@...

December 30, 2003

Quoting Idol <Idol@...>:

> -

> >Why is it necessary to have it in

> >the body of the post?

>

> Two reasons, both of which boil down to courtesy. First, often

> enough the name in the " from " field is just the email address,

> which frequently bears no resemblance to a name.

Fair enough, although I would say that this is a good argument for setting

one's e-mail client to put something better there.

> Gloppyglop51@... doesn't readily parse, and

> it would arguably be rude to address anyone as " Glop " , or " Gloppyglop " ,

> or whatever.

The idea of rudeness implies choice. If Gloppyglop51 is the only name you've

been given, then you don't really have a choice, so I don't see how it

could be considered rude. Some might find " Glop " or " Gloppyglop " to be

overly familiar, though. I recommend " Mr. 51 " or some gender-appropriate

equivalent.

> Second, it facilitates the threading of conversation.

Most (all?) e-mail clients will insert the sender's name above the quoted

text (see above). Standard quoting practice is to leave that in place and

trim the signature. In fact, many e-mail clients will automatically delete

a properly-delimited signature.

--

Berg

bberg@...

December 30, 2003

,

Again there is the problem of what constitutes a name.

How do you prefer to see my name? As Judith Alta or as jaltak, which most

people read as jal-tak when it should be j-alta-k.

I still dislike having to take the time to scroll back to the top of a

message to see who wrote it, when it is so easy add it at the bottom.

Which email clients remove the signature at the bottom of a message?

Judith Alta

December 30, 2003

Quoting Judith Alta <jaltak@...>:

> I am using Outlook 2000. And yes, it gives sender information.

Ah! So you are--I must have misread the header.

> Putting your name at the end of your posts is a common courtesy. A reader

> should not have to scroll back to the top of a long message to discover

> the sender.

You don't have to. If you're reading mail in the preview pane, then the name

should still be visible in the inbox window. If you're opening a separate

window, then the sender/subject/date/etc. should be visible regardless of

where you scroll.

....And I don't mean to be rude, but I can't resist the urge to comment on

the irony of a top-posted lesson on posting etiquette. Given Outlook's

breathtaking incompetence in the area of quoting, though, it's

understandable.

> Do you sign your greeting cards, or do you let the recipient get that

> info from the return address on the envelope?

Greeting cards differ from posts to mailing lists in several relevant ways.

1. They're generally sent as a personal gesture, rather than as a means of

conveying information.

2. They can be separated from the envelopes in which they are sent, with the

card usually being retained long after the envelope has been discarded.

3. They are often put on display for decorative purposes.

Unless one's signature has content, either decorative or informative, that

cannot easily be put into the e-mail's header and displayed by most e-mail

clients, I don't see any reason to sign a non-personal e-mail at the

bottom. It seems to me to be largely a vestige of paper mail.

--

Berg

bberg@...

December 30, 2003

It still boils down to the fact that not everyone puts a name on their

emails.

When a new Outlook 2000 account is set up the very first thing that it asks

is:

" When you send e-mail, your name will appear in the From field of the

outgoing message. Type your name exactly as you would like to appear. "

(direct quote)

Whatever is typed into that box is what shows up in the sender information

line and in the header info. If gobbledygook is put in that field

gobbledygook is what appears as the " sender. "

And I'm with in that it is a common courtesy to take a couple of

seconds to sign a post.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Quoting Judith Alta <jaltak@...>:

> I am using Outlook 2000. And yes, it gives sender information.

Ah! So you are--I must have misread the header.

> Putting your name at the end of your posts is a common courtesy. A reader

> should not have to scroll back to the top of a long message to discover

> the sender.

You don't have to. If you're reading mail in the preview pane, then the name

should still be visible in the inbox window. If you're opening a separate

window, then the sender/subject/date/etc. should be visible regardless of

where you scroll.

....And I don't mean to be rude, but I can't resist the urge to comment on

the irony of a top-posted lesson on posting etiquette. Given Outlook's

breathtaking incompetence in the area of quoting, though, it's

understandable.

> Do you sign your greeting cards, or do you let the recipient get that

> info from the return address on the envelope?

Greeting cards differ from posts to mailing lists in several relevant ways.

1. They're generally sent as a personal gesture, rather than as a means of

conveying information.

2. They can be separated from the envelopes in which they are sent, with the

card usually being retained long after the envelope has been discarded.

3. They are often put on display for decorative purposes.

Unless one's signature has content, either decorative or informative, that

cannot easily be put into the e-mail's header and displayed by most e-mail

clients, I don't see any reason to sign a non-personal e-mail at the

bottom. It seems to me to be largely a vestige of paper mail.

December 30, 2003

,

I've just switched to Outlook from Eudora and like the email address at top.

Eudora would reply with On date, time you wrote only. Wasn't top posting

left an option previously due to ease of not having to scroll down to read

new parts to thread. I can't straighten my right thumb due to a childhood

injury and type with one finger so any little thing like optional top

posting are helpful time and tendon stress wise. Agree that some posts with

many portions to respond to are best responded to with quote, response,

quote, response. Am not saying bottom posting shouldn't be done just that it

can be useful.

Wanita

From: " Berg " <bberg@...>

> ...And I don't mean to be rude, but I can't resist the urge to comment on

> the irony of a top-posted lesson on posting etiquette. Given Outlook's

> breathtaking incompetence in the area of quoting, though, it's

> understandable.

December 30, 2003

Wanita,

Another dislike of mine, with the exception that you mention, is having to

scroll through a long post to try to find the response at the bottom.

I prefer to have at least parts of the message so I know what the response

is referring to.

And for anyone who does not like to take the time to add their name at the

bottom of the message most email clients can do it for you automatically.