On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Philo wrote: > You know, I've wondered about this. I'm on one list that has a five-line > footer with addresses and a URL. Do the same people that put these footers > flame users for overlong .sig's? Isn't the concept the same? (Except that > the footer goes to WAY more people than any .sig) I tend to agree with you, which is why I've never worried about trying to attach such things to the list postings. Cutesy sigs, used consistently, are irritants. First couple of times you see it it's maybe cute or clever, but it becomes wearisome quickly (and just as wearisome are those which insist on giving every possible email, snailmail, voice phone, fax phone, voice-mail phone, etc. and put it all in sequential lines). Same thing with top and bottom banners on list postings. The first few times, "Hey, that's neat, they give us all that info right here!" But after you've seen it a few hundred times, and it increases the length of each posting, it's a nuisance. The ones who will pay attention and learn how to do things on their own will do so without the banners, and will be irritated by them. The ones who do not pay attention, do not learn despite being bombarded, will be equally irritated. They don't want to be bothered with that stuff since their friendly local listowner will take care of it for them. While some people seem to like them, I see the banners as lose/lose propositions. Douglas Winship Hays County, Texas [log in to unmask] Secondary AUTOCAT Listowner MEDLAB-L