how to say bye in a formal letter

[d***@gmail.com]

This is an excellent example of how to best end correspondence. It would be the European-preferred way to say goodbye. Sincerely Yours or Warmest Regards as well. The multiple languages in Europe are able to translate their goodbye into English and it sounds more varied.

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours faithfully,
Christian
Denmark, Europe
--
http://zzz.ninja.dk (in Danish)

[Don Phillipson]

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

The conventions were described in detail in "letter books"
found in most libraries, with specimen letters for every
imaginable purpose, from someone seeking a job to a
lawyer threatening court action. They also displayed the
formal ways of addressing (in person, or in a letter, or on
an envelope) a prince, a legislator, a bishop, or any other
sort of dignitary. When I was taught British military official
writing, every letter had to begin:
"I have the honour to (report, request, invite, etc.) . . ."
and had to end:
"I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant."

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

Evidently, I have never been the recipient of a formal letter. I've
never seen that.

And, in business school, I was never taught that. Neither at Indiana
University or at Northwestern University. Business letters were
covered in classes at both.

I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson

How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

Evidently, I have never been the recipient of a formal letter. I've
never seen that.

He forgot to add "in parts of Canada" (which he spells "in North America").

Post by Tony Cooper
And, in business school, I was never taught that. Neither at Indiana
University or at Northwestern University. Business letters were
covered in classes at both.
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

More to the point is why NP chose to append their question to a 16-year-old thread.

[micky]

On Tue, 05 May 2015 22:16:11 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"

Post by Don Phillipson

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

Evidently, I have never been the recipient of a formal letter. I've
never seen that.
And, in business school, I was never taught that. Neither at Indiana
University or at Northwestern University. Business letters were
covered in classes at both.

I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to. Most of my employers treated
me okay, but not well enough to proclaim faithfulness. They shoudl be
happy when I'm sincere.

Post by Tony Cooper
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

[Joe Fineman]

Post by micky
I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to.

That is pretty much my attitude. I use "Yours faithfully" for
correspondence with my customers, but "Yours truly" for other business
letters.

When I was in elementary school (US, 1940s), I was taught that "Yours
truly" was right for business letters, and "Sincerely yours" for
personal letters to acquaintances who had not reached the stage where
something more affectionate was called for.

[micky]

Post by Joe Fineman

Post by micky
I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to.

That is pretty much my attitude. I use "Yours faithfully" for
correspondence with my customers, but "Yours truly" for other business
letters.
When I was in elementary school (US, 1940s), I was taught that "Yours
truly" was right for business letters, and "Sincerely yours" for
personal letters to acquaintances who had not reached the stage where
something more affectionate was called for.

That sounds very familiar. I went to elementary school in the 1950's.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Joe Fineman

Post by micky
I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to.

That is pretty much my attitude. I use "Yours faithfully" for
correspondence with my customers, but "Yours truly" for other business
letters.

And in email I always use "Regards,". As a mark of special favor I
may make it "Best regards".

[Robert Bannister]

Post by micky
I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to. Most of my employers treated
me okay, but not well enough to proclaim faithfulness. They shoudl be
happy when I'm sincere.

Skies above. It formulaic, not literal. I'm sure few people who write
"sincerely" are intending sincerity any more than business people are
pledging faithfulness.

[micky]

On Thu, 07 May 2015 15:41:58 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by micky
I would never close with "yours faithfully" unles writing to someone I
had a duty or desire to be faithful to. Most of my employers treated
me okay, but not well enough to proclaim faithfulness. They shoudl be
happy when I'm sincere.

Skies above. It formulaic, not literal.

It might not be literal, but I am.

Post by Robert Bannister
I'm sure few people who write

It's not how other people feel, how many or how few of them, but how I
feel, and I make a real effort to be sincere in my letters and my Usenet
posts too, rewriiting them if I realize I don't really believe what I've
said.

Post by Robert Bannister
"sincerely" are intending sincerity any more than business people are
pledging faithfulness.

[occam]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think the
conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the 60s.
Good riddance, I say.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by occam

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think the
conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the 60s.
Good riddance, I say.

In those days I had no mustache. However, a few years before that I
had a "flattop" and kept a jar of Butch Wax in the bathroom cabinet.

Amazing how a few decades passing can change what we think a product
will be used for based on the name of the product. The name "Butch
Wax" might appeal to an entirely different market today.

[micky]

On Wed, 06 May 2015 16:39:48 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by occam

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think the
conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the 60s.
Good riddance, I say.

In those days I had no mustache. However, a few years before that I
had a "flattop" and kept a jar of Butch Wax in the bathroom cabinet.
Amazing how a few decades passing can change what we think a product
will be used for based on the name of the product. The name "Butch
Wax" might appeal to an entirely different market today.

I had a flattop, buit I don't remember Butch Wax. I have a vague
recollection it came in a tube, about 1.5 inches in diameter. The
substance It might even have been green.

I think kids should be allowed to do whatever they want to their hair,
like dying it blue, since it grows back. Unless of course permission to
do this will ruin it for them, since it won't be rebellion anymore.

[Snidely]

Post by micky
On Wed, 06 May 2015 16:39:48 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by occam

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think the
conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the 60s.
Good riddance, I say.

In those days I had no mustache. However, a few years before that I
had a "flattop" and kept a jar of Butch Wax in the bathroom cabinet.
Amazing how a few decades passing can change what we think a product
will be used for based on the name of the product. The name "Butch
Wax" might appeal to an entirely different market today.

I had a flattop, buit I don't remember Butch Wax. I have a vague
recollection it came in a tube, about 1.5 inches in diameter. The
substance It might even have been green.

Butch Wax as I knew it (courtesy of an older brother) was pink and came
in jar and was about thick enough to support a Matchbox (tm) car (until
Hot Wheels ate their lunch).

There are some "museum putty" and "museum wax" products of about the
same consistency, available whereever earthquakes are shown.

Post by micky
I think kids should be allowed to do whatever they want to their hair,
like dying it blue, since it grows back. Unless of course permission to
do this will ruin it for them, since it won't be rebellion anymore.

Back in the days before there were Goths, a girl at my Junior High
showed up one day in tears and green hair. Her hair coloring efforts
had gone awry (I think she was trying for blonde). The counselors sent
her home so she could undertake repairs.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Snidely
Back in the days before there were Goths, a girl at my Junior High
showed up one day in tears and green hair. Her hair coloring efforts
had gone awry (I think she was trying for blonde). The counselors sent
her home so she could undertake repairs.

A nice zeugma; would "green hair and tears" be more prosaic, in that the
former explains the latter?

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Snidely

Post by micky
On Wed, 06 May 2015 16:39:48 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by occam

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think
the conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the
60s. Good riddance, I say.

In those days I had no mustache. However, a few years before that I
had a "flattop" and kept a jar of Butch Wax in the bathroom cabinet.
Amazing how a few decades passing can change what we think a product
will be used for based on the name of the product. The name "Butch
Wax" might appeal to an entirely different market today.

I had a flattop, buit I don't remember Butch Wax. I have a vague
recollection it came in a tube, about 1.5 inches in diameter. The
substance It might even have been green.

Butch Wax as I knew it (courtesy of an older brother) was pink and came
in jar and was about thick enough to support a Matchbox (tm) car (until
Hot Wheels ate their lunch).
There are some "museum putty" and "museum wax" products of about the
same consistency, available whereever earthquakes are shown.

Post by micky
I think kids should be allowed to do whatever they want to their hair,
like dying it blue, since it grows back. Unless of course permission to
do this will ruin it for them, since it won't be rebellion anymore.

Back in the days before there were Goths, a girl at my Junior High
showed up one day in tears and green hair. Her hair coloring efforts
had gone awry (I think she was trying for blonde). The counselors sent
her home so she could undertake repairs.

How times have changed. Today, she'd have pink hair and some of the boys
would have green, and no accidents involved.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Snidely

Post by micky
On Wed, 06 May 2015 16:39:48 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by occam

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 5 May 2015 17:56:15 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
I guess I should also point out that we were never instructed on how
to apply wax seals to the envelopes, either.

How about instructions for applying wax to your moustache? I think
the conventions Don speaks of ("I have the honour to ...) are the
formalities of the very regimented e.g. UK military types. Not even
civil servants used the "your obedient servant" sign off since the
60s. Good riddance, I say.

In those days I had no mustache. However, a few years before that I
had a "flattop" and kept a jar of Butch Wax in the bathroom cabinet.
Amazing how a few decades passing can change what we think a product
will be used for based on the name of the product. The name "Butch
Wax" might appeal to an entirely different market today.

I had a flattop, buit I don't remember Butch Wax. I have a vague
recollection it came in a tube, about 1.5 inches in diameter. The
substance It might even have been green.

Butch Wax as I knew it (courtesy of an older brother) was pink and came
in jar and was about thick enough to support a Matchbox (tm) car (until
Hot Wheels ate their lunch).
There are some "museum putty" and "museum wax" products of about the
same consistency, available whereever earthquakes are shown.

Post by micky
I think kids should be allowed to do whatever they want to their hair,
like dying it blue, since it grows back. Unless of course permission to
do this will ruin it for them, since it won't be rebellion anymore.

Back in the days before there were Goths, a girl at my Junior High
showed up one day in tears and green hair. Her hair coloring efforts
had gone awry (I think she was trying for blonde).

Dorothy L. Sayers had a short story that depended on the tendency of
different hair dyes and bleaches to interact in unexpected ways. The
main character is a rather timid barber who realizes in the middle of
bleaching the hair of a large muscular client that this was a dangerous
and violent escaped prisoner that the police were looking for. He used
a mixture of chemicals that in the short run would simply bleach the
hair, but in a few hours would turn it bright green.

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Snidely
The counselors sent
her home so she could undertake repairs.

How times have changed. Today, she'd have pink hair and some of the
boys would have green, and no accidents involved.

[Dr Nick]

Post by Don Phillipson

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

The most recent formal letter I've received (a covering letter for a
pile of financial reports and a voting form), starts:

Dear Dr Atty

and ends

Yours sincerely,

Which is what I'd have expected as I've been addressed by name.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Dr Nick

Post by Don Phillipson

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

The most recent formal letter I've received (a covering letter for a
Dear Dr Atty
and ends
Yours sincerely,
Which is what I'd have expected as I've been addressed by name.

When I arrived in France 28 years ago it was ztill usual to end formakl
letters with the French equivalent of:

I beseech you, my dear friend and colleague, to accept the expression
of my most distinguished compliments

with variations according to who the recipient is (no "friend" for
someone you've not met, no "distinguished" if you regard him as your
superior), and who is writing (no "sentiments" if you're a woman
writing to a man).

but email has killed all that. Eric would like the way most emails of
that sort end today: "Cordialement".

[micky]

On Wed, 6 May 2015 15:10:52 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Dr Nick

Post by Don Phillipson

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

The most recent formal letter I've received (a covering letter for a
Dear Dr Atty
and ends
Yours sincerely,
Which is what I'd have expected as I've been addressed by name.

When I arrived in France 28 years ago it was ztill usual to end formakl
I beseech you, my dear friend and colleague, to accept the expression
of my most distinguished compliments
with variations according to who the recipient is (no "friend" for
someone you've not met, no "distinguished" if you regard him as your
superior), and who is writing (no "sentiments" if you're a woman
writing to a man).
but email has killed all that. Eric would like the way most emails of
that sort end today: "Cordialement".

OT, but when I was in the hospital in Guatamala in 1971, my roommate
told me how to ask for something. "Hagame el gran favor de traerme un
almojado mas" iirc. Do me the great favor of bringing me one more
pillow.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
but email has killed all that. Eric would like the way most emails of
that sort end today: "Cordialement".

+1

When I studied French in high school and college (1960s), the
textbooks said to close with "Avec mes meilleurs voeux".

Recently, I asked a Montreal-based customer, whose first language is
CanFr, and she advised using "Cordialement".

[Derek Turner]

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.

Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely

The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

[David D S]

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and
these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century)
taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single
likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or
just to be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be
used on acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the
1960s)

This is what I understood and was also taught (also in a UK Grammar
School in the 1960s and up to 1972).

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.



Charles,

[R H Draney]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and
end "Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

Or OO if you hug king-side....r

[Peter Moylan]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and
end "Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

Or OO if you hug king-side....r

Or if the person you're hugging has only two breasts.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

No, Xs are kisses.

Circled crosses or Xs would be the Phoenician letter Tet.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

No, Xs are kisses.
Circled crosses or Xs would be the Phoenician letter Tet.

He might have been thinking of his wife, with OXOXO

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

No, Xs are kisses.
Circled crosses or Xs would be the Phoenician letter Tet.

He might have been thinking of his wife, with OXOXO

That still wouldn't be five hugs. Nor are they "in the middle." They are
_between_.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Derek Turner

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings) and these
conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th century) taught in
business school. "Yours faithfully" remains the single likeliest
signoff for a formal letter in English.

They come as matched pairs.
Dear Sir (Madam) & Yours faithfully
Dear Mr (Miss, Mrs) Smith & Yours sincerely
The former is used when the recipient is unknown and/or un-met or just to
be more formal. I was taught that the latter should only be used on
acquaintance. (Educated in a British Grammar School in the 1960s)

Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

[R H Draney]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

On 2015-05-07 18:22:09 +0200, Charles Bishop

Post by Charles Bishop
Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

What was that menu in the Microsoft Office "Draw" tool that allowed you to
align a number of objects either by "middle" or by "center" (with wildly
different results in nearly all cases)....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

On 2015-05-07 18:22:09 +0200, Charles Bishop

Post by Charles Bishop
Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

What was that menu in the Microsoft Office "Draw" tool that allowed you to
align a number of objects either by "middle" or by "center" (with wildly
different results in nearly all cases)....r

Not a problem. In PowerPoint they come in a hexad: Top Middle Bottom Left Center Right. And you can align wrt the selected items or wrt the slide.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

Sold in the UK as "OXO Good Grips"; I hadn't heard about the reason
for the name.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

You could slash over it. [snort]

[Snidely]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Charles Bishop
Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

Sold in the UK as "OXO Good Grips"; I hadn't heard about the reason
for the name.

"Good Grips" is a line of products within the OXO brand. Trademarked,
I'm willing to bet, but it's not the brand itself. There are OXO items
that don't have grips, and older OXO grips weren't as
ergo-slipproof-ish.

It's like the difference between "Ford" and "Fiesta". Or "BMW" and
"i-series".

/dps

[Oliver Cromm]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

Just pile them on top of each other. Neatly aligned, or people
would think it was an asterisk.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

Just pile them on top of each other. Neatly aligned, or people
would think it was an asterisk.

You can't put even one of them "in the middle of" a row of three -- unless
you're back to writing a Tet between two `Ayins. Plus, wouldn't your addressee
feel short-changed at getting just one kiss instead of three?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

Just pile them on top of each other. Neatly aligned, or people
would think it was an asterisk.

I'm surprised it was necessary for you to explain that, but apparently
it was. WIWAL we used a cross for a kiss and a circle with a cross
inside it for a hug ⨂ (Unicode U+2297). You can write them in any order
you like, such as ⨂⨂⨂⨂××⨂.

[Guy Barry]

I'm surprised it was necessary for you to explain that, but apparently it
was. WIWAL we used a cross for a kiss and a circle with a cross inside it
for a hug ⨂ (Unicode U+2297). You can write them in any order you like,
such as ⨂⨂⨂⨂××⨂.

But that's the symbol for a tensor product - or a hot-cross bun.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm surprised it was necessary for you to explain that, but apparently
it was. WIWAL we used a cross for a kiss and a circle with a cross
inside it for a hug ⨂ (Unicode U+2297). You can write them in any
order you like, such as ⨂⨂⨂⨂××⨂.

But that's the symbol for a tensor product - or a hot-cross bun.

Our hot-cross buns are rotated by 45 degrees, to ensure that we don't
confuse them with tensor products.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Robert Bannister
Likewise from at least ten years earlier. Of course, I can't remember
when I last wrote a formal letter or any letter for that matter and I
don't put greeting either at the beginning or end of emails. I have a
few friends who honestly believe all emails should begin "Hi!" and end
"Hugs xxx", which I find childish.

Certainly. Everybody knows hugs are OOO.

with crosses in the middle, Shirley?

That's beef bouillon cubes - hugs & kisses or OXO.

Here, OXO is a brand of kitchenware, tools and the like. Good quality
and ergonomics. The originator chose the name for hugs and kiss.

And you still can't put "crosses" "in the middle of" a line of three items.

Just pile them on top of each other. Neatly aligned, or people
would think it was an asterisk.

I'm surprised it was necessary for you to explain that, but apparently
it was. WIWAL we used a cross for a kiss and a circle with a cross
inside it for a hug ⨂ (Unicode U+2297). You can write them in any order
you like, such as ⨂⨂⨂⨂××⨂.

Nope, I have _never_ seen such a portmanteau symbol for 'hug' or 'hug+kiss'.
Has anyone else? Love letters are signed with Xs (kisses) and Os (hugs).

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that some people think that something they
may have seen when they were a lad isn't universally experienced.

That last combination there is Tet Tet Tet Tet Taw Taw Tet in Phoenician.
It doesn't have any meaning in that or related languages.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Don Phillipson

[quoted text muted]
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange . . .
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?

This is a matter of convention (not laws or personal feelings)
and these conventions are (or were for the whole of the 20th
century) taught in business school. "Yours faithfully" remains
the single likeliest signoff for a formal letter in English.

That is the convention in BrE. Not in "English".

In AmE, it is "Very truly yours" in business letters and "Sincerely
yours" in personal letters. "Yours faithfully" would cause puzzlement
or derision.

In Asian English, at least from what I get at work, it is "Please do
the needful", which I find quite irritating even though,
intellectually, I know the writer doesn't mean to give offense.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by d***@gmail.com

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.>> So, what
is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours faithfully,
Christian
Denmark, Europe

This is an excellent example of how to best end correspondence. It
would be the European-preferred way to say goodbye. Sincerely Yours or
Warmest Regards as well. The multiple languages in Europe are able to
translate their goodbye into English and it sounds more varied.

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages? If
you take that long to answer a formal letter (a job offer, for example)
your letter is likely to go straight into the bin, regardless of how
you end it.

If you plan to come here often, please note that we don't do
top-posting in this group (I've rearranged your message into the proper
order).

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.

I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it.

I don't even notice that. The only thing that I notice that makes a
post stand out for any reason other than what is said is when it's a
post with line length that extends from my screen to two streets to
the right of my house. I usually enjoy Helen's posts, but they are a
PIA to read for this reason.

Oh, and Stephan Ram's posts with those chevrons.


I suspect that

Post by Peter Moylan
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

No; it's gmail users who do it. Not the same thing at all. I've no idea how
gmail has been integrted into the GG database. The default GG display puts
the thread with the most recent addition at the top.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

No; it's gmail users who do it. Not the same thing at all. I've no idea how
gmail has been integrted into the GG database. The default GG display puts
the thread with the most recent addition at the top.

If you do a Google search you can get a post in a group (including a
usenet groups) as a hit. From that hit you can make a reply. This might
be what is happening.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the
date line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users can
now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly the
same interface provided for viewing and responding to current posts.
Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed list of
old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will invite you
to respond, providing nothing that might remind an inexperienced user to
check the date of a post before replying to it. Caveat lector, as they
say.
--
S.O.P.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter Moylan
Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users can
now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly the
same interface provided for viewing and responding to current posts.
Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed list of
old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will invite you
to respond, providing nothing that might remind an inexperienced user to
check the date of a post before replying to it. Caveat lector, as they
say.

That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter Moylan
Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users can
now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly the
same interface provided for viewing and responding to current posts.
Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed list of
old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will invite you
to respond, providing nothing that might remind an inexperienced user to
check the date of a post before replying to it. Caveat lector, as they
say.

That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter Moylan
Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users can
now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly the
same interface provided for viewing and responding to current posts.
Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed list of
old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will invite you
to respond, providing nothing that might remind an inexperienced user to
check the date of a post before replying to it. Caveat lector, as they
say.

Your list of results can be sorted either by "Relevance" (no hint of what
criterion is used; it's useless), which is the default, or by "Date," which
reliably puts the most recent first.

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

How many of the GG-users here do?

[Guy Barry]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Guy Barry
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

"Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this!"

"Well then, don't."

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Guy Barry
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

"Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Well then, don't."

I used to think that was a joke, but I got precisely that response from
a rheumatologist about a year ago. I've since given up on him, but not
for that reason.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Guy Barry
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

"Doctor, doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
"Well then, don't."

It doesn't hurt to post from Google Groups (though the interface can be a
bit awkward). If I'm away from my computer (which I occasionally am when
posting), it's my only option. I haven't used it for a while though.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

I don't know what "post from GG" is.

[James Hogg]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Isn't that what you do with every message you post?

Or am I being whooshed?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Isn't that what you do with every message you post?
Or am I being whooshed?

I post from my computer. You-all seem not to distinguish email from newsgroups,
as in the thread confusing "gmail" with "GG."

[James Hogg]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Isn't that what you do with every message you post?
Or am I being whooshed?

I post from my computer. You-all seem not to distinguish email from newsgroups,
as in the thread confusing "gmail" with "GG."

If you put it that way, I post from my house. But I don't use Google
Groups because I have a proper newsreader.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Isn't that what you do with every message you post?
Or am I being whooshed?

I post from my computer. You-all seem not to distinguish email from newsgroups,
as in the thread confusing "gmail" with "GG."

If you put it that way, I post from my house. But I don't use Google
Groups because I have a proper newsreader.

I suppose I post _in_ GG.

I keep seeing sundry complaints from people here that they can't do this-or-that
with their "proper newsreaders" that are ordinary features of GG.

[Oliver Cromm]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Isn't that what you do with every message you post?
Or am I being whooshed?

I post from my computer. You-all seem not to distinguish email from newsgroups,
as in the thread confusing "gmail" with "GG."

If you put it that way, I post from my house. But I don't use Google
Groups because I have a proper newsreader.

I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

Indeed - "Google Groups" in fact refers strictly to those groups that are
internal to Google, which aren't part of Usenet. Google Groups also
provides an interface to Usenet, so I suppose the best phrasing would be "I
post via Google Groups".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

Indeed - "Google Groups" in fact refers strictly to those groups that are
internal to Google, which aren't part of Usenet. Google Groups also
provides an interface to Usenet, so I suppose the best phrasing would be "I
post via Google Groups".

Very good. I don't know what those GG sensu stricto are; I'm on a few Yahoo
groups, but participation in even the most active (ANE-2) has fallen way off.

[Oliver Cromm]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

Indeed - "Google Groups" in fact refers strictly to those groups that are
internal to Google, which aren't part of Usenet. Google Groups also
provides an interface to Usenet, so I suppose the best phrasing would be "I
post via Google Groups".

Very good. I don't know what those GG sensu stricto are; I'm on a few Yahoo
groups, but participation in even the most active (ANE-2) has fallen way off.

As an example, I'm still receiving messages from honyaku, a fairly
active group for questions on translation between Japanese and
(mostly) English. It went from a traditional Mailing List server
to Yahoo to Google Groups.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/honyaku>

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

Indeed - "Google Groups" in fact refers strictly to those groups that are
internal to Google, which aren't part of Usenet. Google Groups also
provides an interface to Usenet, so I suppose the best phrasing would be "I
post via Google Groups".

Very good. I don't know what those GG sensu stricto are; I'm on a few Yahoo
groups, but participation in even the most active (ANE-2) has fallen way off.

As an example, I'm still receiving messages from honyaku, a fairly
active group for questions on translation between Japanese and
(mostly) English. It went from a traditional Mailing List server
to Yahoo to Google Groups.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/honyaku>

So like Yahoo Groups, they're what used to be called "discussion lists."

[Oliver Cromm]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Oliver Cromm

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I suppose I post _in_ GG.

If you did that, most of us wouldn't even see it. It's only
because it goes from GG to Usenet that we do.

Indeed - "Google Groups" in fact refers strictly to those groups that are
internal to Google, which aren't part of Usenet. Google Groups also
provides an interface to Usenet, so I suppose the best phrasing would be "I
post via Google Groups".

Very good. I don't know what those GG sensu stricto are; I'm on a few Yahoo
groups, but participation in even the most active (ANE-2) has fallen way off.

As an example, I'm still receiving messages from honyaku, a fairly
active group for questions on translation between Japanese and
(mostly) English. It went from a traditional Mailing List server
to Yahoo to Google Groups.
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/honyaku>

So like Yahoo Groups, they're what used to be called "discussion lists."

I don't remember hearing that term, but it works like a mailing
list with an additional Web interface. This web interface, in
turn, is also used as an interface to Usenet. That's where you
read and post.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter T. Daniels
That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

Because people setting up a GG account are far more likely to use a gmail
address?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm no longer allowed to use my
blueyonder.co.uk email address on GG. If I want to post from there (which I
rarely do), I have to use my gmail address.

I don't know what "post from GG" is.

Using GG to post to Usenet, just as you do.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter Moylan
Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users
can now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly
the same interface provided for viewing and responding to current
posts. Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed
list of old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will
invite you to respond, providing nothing that might remind an
inexperienced user to check the date of a post before replying to it.
Caveat lector, as they say.

That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

That's presumably because a gmail account includes a Google Groups
account. It seems to me that inexperienced users are more likely to
either stumble onto a newsgroup because they have a gmail account or sign
up for a gmail account under the mistaken assumption that they need one
to use Google Groups.

[Snidely]

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sneaky O. Possum

Post by Peter Moylan
Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect
that GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that
people will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently
masochistic to go and look.

I am, and I've already looked. I think the problem began when Google
improved the accessbility of its USENET archive. Google Groups users
can now view several decades' worth of archived posts - using exactly
the same interface provided for viewing and responding to current
posts. Search for a keyword and GG returns an indiscriminately mixed
list of old and new results; look at any of those results and GG will
invite you to respond, providing nothing that might remind an
inexperienced user to check the date of a post before replying to it.
Caveat lector, as they say.

That doesn't explain why those irruptions come specifically from gmail users.

That's presumably because a gmail account includes a Google Groups
account. It seems to me that inexperienced users are more likely to
either stumble onto a newsgroup because they have a gmail account

That's not very likely. You have to look at the "more products" list,
work your way to the bottom and click on "even more", and then scroll
down the resulting page (which is in a new tab) to find the "social"
tools.

The most likely ways of getting into GG is to have been invited by
someone, or to have done a search for some term and have a GG answer
pop up on the results list. Actually, I may be wrong. Because I got
to the Web2Py GG list from the Web2Py web pages, is kind of like being
invited, but only if you consider the sign for "Market Street Exit" to
be an invitation.

Post by Sneaky O. Possum
or sign
up for a gmail account under the mistaken assumption that they need one
to use Google Groups.

I see Guy has a post that suggests it is no longer a mistaken
assumption.

That isn't a handicap for me, as I already had the GMail accounts. I
sort of have a Yahoo mail account, but I don't really try to use it for
anything, because I don't like Yahoo mail. (I do like Flikr.) I
haven't had an MS-based email account since 2008 (it went with the old
job, and it was in-house with Exchange Server). I haven't had an
ISP-based account since I stopped using a landline to access dialup
(Squirrel Mail was a bit strange, I think).

Anyway, I blame the very-very-old-thread-resurrection on search
results.

/dps

[Stan Brown]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

Yet another vindication of my decision, probably a decade ago, simply
to killfile ANYTHING that comes from Google Gropes.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

Yet another vindication of my decision, probably a decade ago, simply
to killfile ANYTHING that comes from Google Gropes.

Oh, he's claiming it's nothing personal?

What is "comes from Google Groups"?

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

On Monday, March 1, 1999 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-6

Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

Notice that it's only ever Google Groups users who do it. I suspect that
GG has introduced some feature that makes it more likely that people
will respond to ancient posts, but I'm not sufficiently masochistic to
go and look.

Not that I'm aware of. Most likely, someone was doing a search for
some term of interest, and somehow an old AUE post came up high enough
in the list of results to be noticed.

The normal GG interface shows most-recently active threads first, and
you have to scroll down a long ways (AJAX at work), or hit the "older"
button a lot of times, to get very far in the past.

To find the "Name of @" thread took me a while, and others had given me
some clues as to how far back to look. It took me a while even though
I was using the search tool, because in 20 years there were a lot of
partial matches.

Note that when I resurrect a thread from /last year/, I'm doing it at
home with a "real newsreader", which continues to show me that I have
unread threads from the past as long they are still on the newsserver;
I never scroll that far back in GG unless I'm looking for something
specific.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 6 May 2015 07:15:38 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.
I must make a note to be more thorough in my reading in the future.
Or, should that me "I shall make a note..."?

A pretty sure giveaway is that the heading notes (as in this case) 47 of 47
messages are "New." (Right now there are 57 messages. This one will make it 58.)

[Mark Brader]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.

I don't usually read it, but if:

* The predecessor article is not available on the news server
(typically the thread map looks like "(?)--[1]" in trn)
* I don't remember seeing the thread before
* I don't remember seeing the poster's name before

then that raises a red flag, and I do look to see what it's a response
to, including the date if given.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Do you make a practice of posting answers to 16-year-old messages?

This - old messages being responded to - has come up several time in
recent months. Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.

* The predecessor article is not available on the news server
(typically the thread map looks like "(?)--[1]" in trn)
* I don't remember seeing the thread before
* I don't remember seeing the poster's name before
then that raises a red flag, and I do look to see what it's a response
to, including the date if given.

Usually it's not necessary to do so, because the date of the quoted article
is given in the response (which I presume is Google Groups' default quoting
convention). For example, the post that revived the "hamadryad" thread
began "On Wednesday, March 31, 2010 at 5:01:44 AM UTC+2, Steve Hayes
wrote...".

[Mark Brader]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.

I don't usually read it, but if...
then that raises a red flag, and I do look to see what it's a response
to, including the date if given.

Usually it's not necessary to do so, because the date of the quoted article
is given in the response...

Yes, that's the date line that I'm (and I presume Tony was) talking about.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Tony Cooper
Frankly, I'm somewhat amazed that people read the date
line. I can't remember ever noticing.

I don't usually read it, but if...
then that raises a red flag, and I do look to see what it's a response
to, including the date if given.

Usually it's not necessary to do so, because the date of the quoted article
is given in the response...

Yes, that's the date line that I'm (and I presume Tony was) talking about.

Well, I certainly notice the date line. I don't "read" it in the sense of
mentally hearing the post as "on 27 March 1987, Joe Bloggs wrote...", but my
attention is certainly drawn to the date, especially if the year begins
"19", because it's relatively unexpected.

[s***@harborhousefl.com]

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive", but
there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on this
news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five times before
posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just my Humble Opinion"...

[Peter Moylan]

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive", but
there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on this
news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five times before
posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here in
1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive",
but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on
this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five
times before posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are
so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just
my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take a
long time to hone a masterpiece.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive",
but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on
this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five
times before posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are
so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just
my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take a
long time to hone a masterpiece.

Yet apparently is unaware of the maxim "De mortuis nil nisi bonum."

[Whiskers]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and
"inoffensive", but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic
on this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should
reread five times before posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people
are so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry
Just my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were
here in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take
a long time to hone a masterpiece.

Yet apparently is unaware of the maxim "De mortuis nil nisi bonum."

Not knowing who's died and whether or not any of them fall into the
poster's categories of 'rude' etc, the poster may be forgiven perhaps.
There are other faults in the post that seem to be more significant.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive",
but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on
this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five
times before posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are
so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just
my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take a
long time to hone a masterpiece.

Shouldn't there be a comma after "Sorry"?

[Whiskers]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive",
but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on
this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five
times before posting, but who has the time?

Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are
so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just
my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take a
long time to hone a masterpiece.

Shouldn't there be a comma after "Sorry"?

Or a full stop if the J is to stay capital. Masterpieces aren't always
perfect though.

[Dr. HotSalt]

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and "inoffensive",
but there is no "unoffensive".

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic on
this news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread five
times before posting, but who has the time?

Come on, grow some skin already; he said "*minor* point".

Post by Whiskers

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com
Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people are
so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry Just
my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

No kidding.

Post by Whiskers
Perhaps the poster just wanted to re-read the post a few times to be
sure it was worth posting and wouldn't irritate anyone. It can take a
long time to hone a masterpiece.

I admit that I spend more time proofreading than I do editing. That's probably a mistake.


Dr. HotSalt

[unknown]

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Minor point -- there are the words "unoffending" and

"inoffensive", but >>> there is no "unoffensive".

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com

Thanks for patronizing me. Isn't it great that half the traffic

on this >> news group is nitpicks. Sometimes I think I should reread
five times before >> posting, but who has the time?

Post by s***@harborhousefl.com
Don't pay attention to any "smart ass" people here...Here people
are so rude and have no concern about formulism and manner.. Sorry
Just my Humble Opinion"...

Do you mean the people who are here now, or the people who were here
in 1999. There have been a few changes in the last 17 years.

*Surprisingly* few though.


DC, passing through to see if there's anything of interest...

--

[d***@ycdsbk12.ca]

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat,
Christian
Denmark, Europe
--
http://zzz.ninja.dk (in Danish)

--
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
record is strictly prohibited. If you receive this record in error,
please notify me immediately.

In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print unless
required for hard copy record

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by d***@ycdsbk12.ca

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat,
Christian
Denmark, Europe
--
http://zzz.ninja.dk (in Danish)

[-- ]
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
record is strictly prohibited. If you receive this record in error,
please notify me immediately.
In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print unless
required for hard copy record

That is a VERY formal way to say "bye".

/dps

[occam]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by d***@ycdsbk12.ca

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat,
Christian
Denmark, Europe
--
http://zzz.ninja.dk (in Danish)

[-- ]
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
record is strictly prohibited. If you receive this record in error,
please notify me immediately.
In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print unless
required for hard copy record

That is a VERY formal way to say "bye".

Your reply is not only very late, it is also very ambiguous. What is
'That' referring to in the above? Is it referring to the overlong footer
which seems to be standard disclaimer for the timid, or the 'Yours fat,'
at the end of the normal post?

Yours dont-give-a-damn-about-disclaimers
occam

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by occam

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by d***@ycdsbk12.ca

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is why
I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but I
have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat,
Christian
Denmark, Europe
--
http://zzz.ninja.dk (in Danish)

[-- ]
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
record is strictly prohibited. If you receive this record in error,
please notify me immediately.
In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print unless
required for hard copy record

That is a VERY formal way to say "bye".

Your reply is not only very late, it is also very ambiguous. What is
'That' referring to in the above? Is it referring to the overlong footer
which seems to be standard disclaimer for the timid, or the 'Yours fat,'
at the end of the normal post?
Yours dont-give-a-damn-about-disclaimers
occam

These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.

When I was first in France 30 years ago it was quite normal to write
"Veuillez accepter, Monsieur, l’expression de mes sentiments les
meilleurs", but it's a long time since I saw that. Nowadays one write
"Amitiés" for people one knows, or "Cordialement" if one wants to be
more formal. Once my wife was in our Director's office when he was
dictating a letter to his secretary over the telephone, which ended
"Veuillez permettre, mon cher ami et collègue, l’expression de ma plus
profonde respect": after he put the telephone down, he said "God, that
guy is a real idiot."

[charles]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by occam

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by d***@ycdsbk12.ca

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is
why I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but
I have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat, Christian Denmark, Europe

[-- ]
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this record is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this record in error, please notify me
immediately.
In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print
unless required for hard copy record

That is a VERY formal way to say "bye".

Your reply is not only very late, it is also very ambiguous. What is
'That' referring to in the above? Is it referring to the overlong
footer which seems to be standard disclaimer for the timid, or the
'Yours fat,' at the end of the normal post?
Yours dont-give-a-damn-about-disclaimers occam

These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.
When I was first in France 30 years ago it was quite normal to write
"Veuillez accepter, Monsieur, l‘expression de mes sentiments les
meilleurs", but it's a long time since I saw that. Nowadays one write
"Amitiés" for people one knows, or "Cordialement" if one wants to be
more formal. Once my wife was in our Director's office when he was
dictating a letter to his secretary over the telephone, which ended
"Veuillez permettre, mon cher ami et collègue, l‘expression de ma plus
profonde respect": after he put the telephone down, he said "God, that
guy is a real idiot."

And there is the tale of the man who, wring to his tax inspector, ended:
You remain my obedient servant"

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by charles

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by occam

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by d***@ycdsbk12.ca

Hi,
How do you end a formal letter?
I have heard you write "Yours Faithfully..." but IMHO it sounds
strange (BTW English is not my native language so perhaps that is
why I think it sounds stange?).
If it was up to me I would write "Sincerely..." or "Regards..." but
I have been told that it is more used with informal letters.
So, what is the right way to end a formal letter?
Yours fat, Christian Denmark, Europe

[-- ]
IMPORTANT: This information is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection
of Privacy Act. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this record is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this record in error, please notify me
immediately.
In an effort to be environmentally friendly, please do not print
unless required for hard copy record

That is a VERY formal way to say "bye".

Your reply is not only very late, it is also very ambiguous. What is
'That' referring to in the above? Is it referring to the overlong
footer which seems to be standard disclaimer for the timid, or the
'Yours fat,' at the end of the normal post?
Yours dont-give-a-damn-about-disclaimers occam

These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.
When I was first in France 30 years ago it was quite normal to write
"Veuillez accepter, Monsieur, l‘expression de mes sentiments les
meilleurs", but it's a long time since I saw that. Nowadays one write
"Amitiés" for people one knows, or "Cordialement" if one wants to be
more formal. Once my wife was in our Director's office when he was
dictating a letter to his secretary over the telephone, which ended
"Veuillez permettre, mon cher ami et collègue, l‘expression de ma plus
profonde respect": after he put the telephone down, he said "God, that
guy is a real idiot."

You remain my obedient servant"

In Robertson Davies's /Samuel Marchbanks' Almanac/, the bureaucrat in
Ottawa closes a letter with "Yours, but not as much as you are ours".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.

I think I learnt that "Yours truly" was a bit too informal to be proper.
But it was long ago and far away, so I could be misremembering.

As for the other two: the mnemonic was "use 'Yours sincerely' to people
to whom you're faithful, and 'Yours faithfully' when you're sincere".

A phrase that sticks in my mind is "Sentiments distingués" to end a
telegram, at the beginning of a French novel I once read. I thought the
novel was "La Peste" by Camus, but now I can't find it in my copy.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter Moylan
As for the other two: the mnemonic was "use 'Yours sincerely' to people
to whom you're faithful, and 'Yours faithfully' when you're sincere".

I always speak sincerely, from the Latin "sine" = "without" and "cera" =
"wax"....r

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.

I think I learnt that "Yours truly" was a bit too informal to be proper.
But it was long ago and far away, so I could be misremembering.
As for the other two: the mnemonic was "use 'Yours sincerely' to people
to whom you're faithful, and 'Yours faithfully' when you're sincere".

Huh. I am nearly positive I've never used any of the three.

Salutations and closings are entirely a thing of the past for me,
obviated by email, but when I did write letters, which I did a lo of and
for many years, the closings I used were nearly aways "Sincerely"
(business letters), "Yours" (casual acquaintances or casual friends), or
"Love" (everyone else).

If I were to go through a bunch of old letters to my girlfriend there
are probably others that I used as one-offs, but when we were exchanging
at least one letter a day for three school years you had to vary things
some.

For specific sorts of letters, some other closings might be used. "All
My Love" or "All Our Love" on condolence cards, for example.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 05/05/17 08:50, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

<snip>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
These things have changed a lot over the years. 65 years ago I was
taught that "Yours sincerely" was for people I knew, "Yours faithfully"
for formal letters, and (I think) "Yours truly" for business letters.
Hardly anyone uses the last two today, and the first is on its way out.

Grammar school taught me to use "Yours sincerely" for formal letters in
which I knew the name of the addressee, and "Yours faithfully" for those
in which I did not. Thus:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Blah.

Yours faithfully,

but

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

Blah.

Yours sincerely,

Since then, I have adopted the more modern business practice of "open
punctuation", which eschews some of the more wearisome commas and full
stops (such as those after "Madam", "faithfully", "Mr", "Jenkins", and
"sincerely" in the above examples).

In an /informal/ letter, of course I will coin a signature phrase that
seems appropriate to the relationship I have with the addressee (such
as, for example, "It's your round").

<snip>