Does anyone else hate the 'Regards' signature

[Smithy]

I think everyone understands your being tired of someone's sponging. It's your burning hatred for such an innocuous signature that is bizarre.

:arated:

I think I've mentioned it already in this thread but a valediction is just that, a farewell. It's what's inside the body of an email/letter/missive that counts. Judging how someone chooses to say goodbye in any form of correspondence is like judging a book by its cover and not by the content.

Maybe I'm hopelessly pragmatic, but I couldn't give a fig how someone signs off in a message, I've got far too many other things to worry about.

 

[Ticklishchap]

:arated:

Judging how someone chooses to say goodbye in any form of correspondence is like judging a book by its cover and not by the content. .

Going off topic, it's interesting that although we all use this phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover', we often do just that when we're choosing books. ... And usually with good reason.

 

[Ticklishchap]

I think everyone understands your being tired of someone's sponging. It's your burning hatred for such an innocuous signature that is bizarre.

It's not burning hatred, merely dislike. I think you might be projecting a bit. It's you who are showing strong emotions about this because you seem to be so vehement in defending this 'innocuous' signature as if preserving it really meant something to you. Your vehemence leads you to say quite hurtful personal things, as you did in your early post, even though they are completely without foundation. It is this that is surely 'bizarre'.

 

[Smithy]

Going off topic, it's interesting that although we all use this phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover', we often do just that when we're choosing books. ... And usually with good reason.

Oh I don't know, I've read many a good book which have had shocking or erroneous covers (I used to work in publishing and have seen many examples of this). Once again, what's on the outside doesn't necessarily translate to what's on the inside. The same could be said about many people.

 

[Ticklishchap]

Oh I don't know, I've read many a good book which have had shocking or erroneous covers (I used to work in publishing and have seen many examples of this). Once again, what's on the outside doesn't necessarily translate to what's on the inside. The same could be said about many people.

I agree. I didn't mean the quality of the cover, more the image on it and what it conveyed. I worked in academic publishing before I moved sideways into property management. Good to hear from someone who worked in a similar or related sphere.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Going off topic, it's interesting that although we all use this phrase 'don't judge a book by its cover', we often do just that when we're choosing books. ... And usually with good reason.

I've always hated that "don't judge a book by its cover" phrase -- if a book says PROBLEMS IN QUADRATIC THEORY on the cover, it's highly unlikely to be a biography of Abraham Lincoln.

As far as signatures go, it's all a question of degrees. "Regards" may be glib and superficial, but it's a lot better than "Smell ya later."

 

[HudsonHawk]

It's not burning hatred, merely dislike. I think you might be projecting a bit. It's you who are showing strong emotions about this because you seem to be so vehement in defending this 'innocuous' signature as if preserving it really meant something to you. Your vehemence leads you to say quite hurtful personal things, as you did in your early post, even though they are completely without foundation. It is this that is surely 'bizarre'.

You asked if any of us also hated the use of regards. We said "no". You've spent the rest of the time explaining why we're wrong. It's none of my business which sign off you use. Carry on with your dislike.

 

[Edward]

I've always hated that "don't judge a book by its cover" phrase -- if a book says PROBLEMS IN QUADRATIC THEORY on the cover, it's highly unlikely to be a biography of Abraham Lincoln.

As far as signatures go, it's all a question of degrees. "Regards" may be glib and superficial, but it's a lot better than "Smell ya later."

It just reminds me of the Sex Pistols - "...and don't you judge a book just by the cover, unless you cover just another; blind acceptance is a sign - of stupid fools who stand in line..." (EMI).

 

[Ticklishchap]

You asked if any of us also hated the use of regards. We said "no". You've spent the rest of the time explaining why we're wrong. It's none of my business which sign off you use. Carry on with your dislike.

In fact, several people said that they found it cold, clipped, etc. It is you who clearly have a problem with this discussion and have to resort to meanness and spite.

 

[scrawlysteve]

I've always hated that "don't judge a book by its cover" phrase -- if a book says PROBLEMS IN QUADRATIC THEORY on the cover, it's highly unlikely to be a biography of Abraham Lincoln.

Don't hate this phrase erroneously. The connotations of the term "cover" go beyond the words of the title. There are multifarious ways publishers can indulge in egregiously meretricious sophistry.

Ta-ra, pet.

 

[scrawlysteve]

The pattern up here is "faithfully" where you are writing to an office, or a person whose name you do not know - "Dear Chairman," "Dear Sir or Madam", et cetera. "Sincerely" is used where one knows their name (Dear Bob, Dear Mr Zimmerman, Dear Lord Griffiths, and so on).

Best not to send Mr Zimmerman no more letters, no, not unless you mail them from ......

 

[LizzieMaine]

It should be "don't judge a book by its *binding*," which was the original sense of the phrase -- a bad book in a fine leather binding was still a bad book, and a good book in a shabby paper wrapper is still a good book.

The "book by its cover" version, though, is too often used as a way of saying "don't judge anything by what the outside proclaims it to be, ever." Which, when you think of it, is the height of ridiculousness. Anyone who claims they never judge anything by what the outside proclaims it to be is both a liar and a fool.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Ahhh, but this time it might not be a Death Cap, said the Nun to the soon to be dead Priest.

 

[HudsonHawk]

In fact, several people said that they found it cold, clipped, etc. It is you who clearly have a problem with this discussion and have to resort to meanness and spite.

If you think I've been mean or spiteful, you have no clue what those words mean.

 

[scrawlysteve]

The "book by its cover" version, though, is too often used as a way of saying "don't judge anything by what the outside proclaims it to be, ever." Which, when you think of it, is the height of ridiculousness. Anyone who claims they never judge anything by what the outside proclaims it to be is both a liar and a fool.

I'm not at all sure that your remark about the common usage is true....of course in most mundane situations you judge something by what it seems to be--life would beome impossible if you couldn't do this.... but the "don't judge a book .... " phrase is, I think, most usually employed to alert someone in situations where one should look beyond surface appearances....
As Bo Diddley said, "I look like a farmer--but I'm a lover,
You cain't judge a book by ..." etc etc.

 

[Edward]

Best not to send Mr Zimmerman no more letters, no, not unless you mail them from ......

Yeah, that's what the judge told me.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

As Bo Diddley said, "I look like a farmer--but I'm a lover,
You cain't judge a book by ..." etc etc.

Ah yes, it was Bo Diddley I was struggling to place. I have the song going through my head, but couldn't remember the singer. Thanks!

 

[scrawlysteve]

No worries ! Saw him do this one in Southend in 196? ...with Jerome and The Duchess, of course.

 

[Ticklishchap]

If you think I've been mean or spiteful, you have no clue what those words mean.

I shall leave others to judge that because I won't go down to your level and resort to completely unnecessary personal abuse.

 

[Ticklishchap]

I'm finding it hard to understand why my criticism of the 'Regards' signature has led to such heated responses, including needless personal abuse in the case of one OP. When I started the discussion, I was trying to get something off my chest but clearly it's hit a raw nerve, because the 'defences' have been even more vehement than my criticisms. I have tried to explain why I feel a strong dislike for this signature - now it would be good to hear why some people feel so strongly 'for' it.
My dislike is actually less strong that when I wrote the post because I have, in fact, got it off my chest. But I'm puzzled about why some people feel so strongly the other way that they are ready to be rude about it.