| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 220.1 | | NOGOV::GOODENOUGH | Jeff Goodenough, IPG Reading-UK | Thu Jul 17 1986 07:41 | 8 |
| "Dear Sir or Madam," is quite common here, though "Dear Sirs," (plural)
is, I would guess, equally common. Bigenderizing this (yes, I'm
trying to get into another note) into "Dear Sirs or Mesdames" would
be horrific :-)
How about "Hey you," ?
Jeff.
|
| 220.2 | Mesdames et Messieurs: | PROSE::WAJENBERG | | Thu Jul 17 1986 09:30 | 9 |
| I'd use "Dear Sir or Madam:" for singulars and "Ladies and Gentlemen:"
for plurals. If there was a handy title, I might substitute that
for the name: "Dear Editor:" or "Dear Doctor:" or "Dear Professor:."
People who announce themselves as a pair of initials and a surname
should be prepared to receive letters addressed to all manner of
genders.
Earl Wajenberg
|
| 220.3 | No greeting...present your message. | APTECH::RSTONE | | Thu Jul 17 1986 10:29 | 13 |
| Back in one of the earlier discussions concerning sex and gender,
I entered my thoughts on the "Greeting" in a business letter. I
have taken the attitude that if the use of a greeting line is awkward,
don't bother using one. Who needs it? What purpose does it serve
other than conformance to formality or a traditional custom. That
element of courtesy may now have to be weighed against the
consideration of the more sensitive issue of an unintended offense
to the recipient.
I see nothing wrong with using the company address, with possibly
a line referencing a position title, followed immediately by the
message which you wish to convey.
|
| 220.4 | | ERIS::CALLAS | Jon Callas | Thu Jul 17 1986 13:21 | 4 |
| In what way is "Dear Sir or Madam" pretentious? I thought it was the
preferred greeting.
Jon
|
| 220.5 | Discussed before | DEREP::CANTOR | Dave Cantor | Thu Jul 17 1986 13:42 | 3 |
| See also the discussion at 143.20ff.
Dave C.
|
| 220.6 | Use Latin | BISTRO::TIMMER | Rien Timmer, Valbonne. | Fri Jul 18 1986 07:07 | 8 |
| In those cases when I'm not sure I often use:
L.S. (Lectori Salutem)
I don't think that's offending to anyone.
Rien.
|
| 220.7 | Huh? | APTECH::RSTONE | | Fri Jul 18 1986 09:46 | 5 |
| Re: .6
I don't know that it will offend anyone, but it probably will confuse
a goodly percentage of the recipients. :^)
|
| 220.8 | Why not "Dear Collegue"? | REX::MINOW | Martin Minow -- DECtalk Engineering | Fri Jul 18 1986 23:22 | 0 |
| 220.9 | Nit alert! Nit alert! | SUPER::KENAH | O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! | Sat Jul 19 1986 16:35 | 16 |
| re -1: Better yet:
Dear Colleague
(Sorry Martin, it's one of those misspellings that I can't ignore.)
Back to original topic. I either ignore the salutation, or use:
Salutations:
I prefer this to "Greetings:"
(Anyone who was around in the late 60's will understand my aversion to
this particular form af address.)
andrew
|
| 220.10 | What's wrong with "Greetings:" exactly? | ECCGY4::BARTA | Gabriel Barta/ESPRIT/Intl Eng/Munich | Sat Jul 19 1986 17:04 | 5 |
| I was emphatically around in the 60s (though not in the U.S.), but I
have no idea why "Greetings:" is any worse than "Salutations:" (which
sounds French to me, b.t.w.).
Gabriel.
|
| 220.11 | You have just "won"... | JON::MORONEY | Madman | Sat Jul 19 1986 21:12 | 6 |
| re .-1: About the most dreaded piece of correspondance a young male could
receive in the '60s started out with "Greetings:". It continued with how
the recipient was going to receive an all-expense paid trip, usually to
Viet Nam.
-Mike
|
| 220.12 | I was there | DELNI::CANTOR | Dave Cantor | Sat Jul 19 1986 23:54 | 10 |
| re Greetings:
I *was* around in the 1960s and I *did* get that most dreaded
piece of correspondence that began with the salutation
'Greetings.' I use it because it makes no assumption about
the sex, social standing, marital status, educational level,
or number of the addressee(s). If a conversation then ensues
about the 1960s, so much the better.
Dave C.
|