Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!nrh From: nrh@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Statements on the Killing of Brian S - (nf) Message-ID: <1769@inmet.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 00:43:19 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1769 Posted: Tue Oct 30 00:43:19 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 1-Nov-84 01:47:32 EST Lines: 55 #R:bonnie:-27000:inmet:3900144:000:2655 inmet!nrh Oct 28 15:06:00 1984 >PS. It is considered polite to sign your postings (yes I know its in the >header too). There is an increase of unsigned letters in all the newsgroups, >especially the more controversial ones. >---------- That's nice. It is considered polite to refer your readers to something a little more concrete when correcting their behavior, such as the netiquette article, an opinion poll, or at least a little logic. A little logic: the REASON you want backing for your correction of their behavior is that people will realize that your criticism is either: 1. Popular -- others feel the same way in sufficient numbers that the person making the "error" would be surprised (i.e. offending so many would strike them as a mistake) 2. Within the rules -- people generally stick to the rules if they make sense. 3. Well founded -- Nothing is more silly, outrageous, annoying, immature, (hey, this is net.flame, right?) cretinous, and snobbish than the pestilential puling of self-appointed arbiters of correct behavior, who oft-times seek merely to coddle their pet peeves, rather than provide the rest of us with valid ideas on how to communicate. I went through this "signature" business with someone in net.politics. The net began without these cute-oh signatures. Things worked fine. Now we have 20 line signatures with elaborate ascii drawings, mottoes, the date in the French Revolutionary calendar, fancy borders, snappy quotes from the movie of the week, the hitch-hiker's guide, popular songs, and silly names. We have had articles of explanations of the quotes (from people who tell us that they've received a lot of questions about the sources), contests for what someone's next quote should be, and write-in campaigns. We even had one signature be the subject of net-censorship (remember the controversy in Maroney's case when he claimed to have accidentally used his "sign-it" macro in an article he posted under someone else's account?). Now, don't get me wrong. I'm delighted with some of these things. But they didn't happen because somebody TOLD people that they'd better put flashy junk at the end of their notes. And now we have someone telling us that it's "considered polite" to sign our messages, although he knows that it's in the header too. My response: TOUGH! just TOUGH! Look in that header, Mac, the exercise will do you good. Some of us are satisfied or PREFER to be known on the net by our lognames. Unsigned articles are on the rise? GOOD! Live with it. Note that I distinguish between an unsigned article (which this is) and an anonymous article (which this is NOT).