I respect the viewpoints of those who made comments about your sig, but I do not agree.
There are many things to be annoyed about. I don’t think your email signature is one of them. On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 17:16 Ross Tajvar <r...@tajvar.io> wrote: > I want to clarify that while I didn't say anything (since it wasn't > on-topic in the other thread), I also found the long signature annoying. I > did not read it beyond the first 1-2 lines. I expect many more than the few > people who spoke up share this opinion. > > While I don't feel it's appropriate for people to complain about something > so trivial as an email signature in a pseudo-professional > setting, apparently we're doing it today. > > I don't like email signatures in general, but since you asked for > suggestions, I suggest using your name and one title that seems most > relevant/important. > > On another note: I don't think you need credentials to be taken seriously > here as long as you present a respectful and coherent argument. I would not > have questioned your background if you had posted this without credentials, > or if anyone else had posted it. I don't recognize the names of most of the > "top talkers" or know their credentials, other than my assumption that they > are network operators of some sort. > > I'm sorry that you've had negative experiences re: your background. > Ultimately, it is up to each individual whether they choose to respect > others and for what reasons. There is little we can do to influence that. > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 5:01 PM Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < > amitch...@isipp.com> wrote: > >> Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything >> about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after >> all)..but I'd meant to include this: >> >> >> Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I >> had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to >> violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how >> many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the >> rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a >> troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which >> would have take up far more space than my .sig :-( >> >> Anne >> >> > On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. < >> amitch...@isipp.com> wrote: >> > >> > Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig >> here, it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not >> contention make, but still...). >> > >> > However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me >> address why I have all of that info in there: >> > >> > Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least >> those here in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just >> "corporate suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet >> issues, and b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've >> found that it's best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be >> reassured that I'm not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but >> that I actually do know what I'm talking about. >> > >> > I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our >> industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based >> on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times >> on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when >> I first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)). >> > >> > I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off). >> > >> > Anne >> > >> > [This .sig space open to suggestions.] >> > >> >>
