File /Humanist.vol22.txt, message 274


Date:         Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:47:30 +0100
From: Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty-AT-MCCARTY.ORG.UK>
Subject: 22.286 why signatures, why brevity in them
To: humanist-AT-Princeton.EDU


               Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 22, No. 286.
       Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
                        www.princeton.edu/humanist/
                     Submit to: humanist-AT-princeton.edu

   [1]   From:    Humanist Discussion Group                           17)
                 <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: RE: 22.281 why signatures, why brevity in them

   [2]   From:    Humanist Discussion Group                          270)
                 <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: Re: 22.281 why signatures, why brevity in them

   [3]   From:    Humanist Discussion Group                           14)
                 <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: present Humanist & most desirable practice


--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:25:16 +0100
         From: Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: RE: 22.281 why signatures, why brevity in them
         In-Reply-To: <48F99341.6090000-AT-mccarty.org.uk>

I too rather dislike the sort of columnar signatures that function as
potted biographies, but I also regret that under the present Humanist
system it is often very difficult to identify or locate the authors of
successive posts, since they all come as if from Willard himself. This
sometimes requires recourse to Google (all the more difficult if the
author is John Smith or Mary McCarthy or ....) when one wishes to
respond off list to some query or suggestion.

It's good to know who is talking, and good to know where they are
talking from.

Stephen Clark
Professor of Philosophy
University of Liverpool
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~srlclark/srlc.htm
<http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/%7Esrlclark/srlc.htm>






--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:25:57 +0100
         From: Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: Re: 22.281 why signatures, why brevity in them
         In-Reply-To: <48F99341.6090000-AT-mccarty.org.uk>



Sometimes I hate it when I have to argue both sides of a point.

My own personal preferences would be that I should NOT address,
as below, anyone differently if HE were a SHE, or if Chinese or
Aleut, etc., etc., etc.

However, in my recent personal experience, I may have cost some
person his or her job simply by offering to proofread web pages
written by that person's now apparent superior, but of whom I'd
not heard previously.  This possibily could have been avoided--
if I had previously know enough about the nationalities, in the
detail required, to have foreseen such events and thus NOT have
tried to do someone a favor who would like resent it.

Oh well. . .love and learn,


Thanks!!!


Michael S. Hart
Founder
Project Gutenberg

Recommended Books:

Dandelion Wine, by Ray Bradbury:  For The Right Brain
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand:  For The Left Brain [or both]
Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson:  To Understand The Internet
The Phantom Toobooth, by Norton Juster:  Lesson of Life. . .





--[3]------------------------------------------------------------------
         Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:35:14 +0100
         From: Humanist Discussion Group <willard.mccarty-AT-mccarty.org.uk>
         Subject: present Humanist & most desirable practice
         In-Reply-To: <48F99341.6090000-AT-mccarty.org.uk>

Those here will be relieved when finally the new Humanist is up and
running, which should be within days now. Then the current truncation of
identities, which I only sometimes catch, will cease. Sorry it has taken
so long, but the crafting of good software takes time.

I would think that the ideal practice in signatures would come from a
balance of considerations -- of the reader who is not at all interested
in your message or you and so wants to scroll past as quickly as
possible, and of the reader who is. But that latter reader, unless in
pursuit of you for reasons other than those consistent with the purposes
of Humanist, would, I'd think, be best served by a minimal amount of
information sufficient to find out who you are and how to get in touch.
I'd ask, what does a potted biography say about the person?

Yours,
WM


   

Humanist Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005