Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsvax.uncecs.edu!uncmed!calico!unccab
From: unccab@calico.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions
Subject: Re: Are signature lines distracting?
Message-ID: <105@uncmed.med.unc.edu>
Date: 10 Jan 90 16:18:07 GMT
References: <659@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1990Jan8.230858.7215@everexn.uucp>
Sender: news@uncmed.med.unc.edu
Reply-To: unccab@uncmed.med.unc.edu (Charles Balan)
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine
Lines: 27

In article <1990Jan8.230858.7215@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes:
 [Much logical thought deleted, not because I disagree, but because I need
 to cut down the lines so that I may respond :-]

>I like the signoffs that have something to say, whether it be
>serious or wry and humorous.  I find them entertaining and
>the personality and HQ (humor quotient) of the poster.

 I must agree with Karen (again (; when I read a posting, the .sig usually
 tells me much about the poster, i.e. "this poster reads Voltaire, ergo
 this poster has an unusually brilliant mind and keen insight," or "this
 poster is from the island of Bali-Hai ergo said poster may not understand
 the intricacies of the subject of dog-sledding" etc.  

 When I read the .sig, it actually sheds much light on the article posted.
 However, I truly have a pet peeve with those who quote an ENTIRE article
 just to respond "I agree/disagree, you moron."  Usually, IMOSHO, much of
 what is quoted from previous poster isn't necessary.  I know, since I
 also usually quote too much.   

 I suppose my .sig says it all.



                            Charles Balan
UNCCAB@med.unc.edu   ,    UNCCAB@uncmed.uucp    ,   UNCCAB@unc.bitnet
%%%%%%%%%%%%%  A Witty Saying Proves Nothing - Voltaire  %%%%%%%%%%%%