Tom Gill wrote a piece arguing email signoffs are archaic baggage that should be scrapped. The Guardian's letters page fired back with two responses that, together, make a better case for the defence than most style guides manage. Jane Rosenthal, writing from Betty's Bay, South Africa, makes the substantive argument: signoffs are not dead ritual but live communication. They convey tone, intention, the nature of the relationship, and — crucially — the character and wit of the writer. She's right. The difference between "Best," "Regards," "Warmly," and "Cheers" is not decorative. It's diagnostic. You learn something real about the sender. Rosenthal then demonstrates her own point by closing with a beautifully self-aware flourish: "I remain, sincerely devoted to this newspaper and its often disaffected journalists." The signoff IS the argument. It does exactly what she says signoffs do — it carries personality, affection, mild irony, and a sense of occasion that "no regards" simply cannot. Siobhan McGovern from Edinburgh takes the lighter path, reporting that Gill's original piece made her almost literally unable to stop laughing on a bus. She calls it "100% on the money" and "absolutely hilarious" — which is interesting, because she's agreeing with the man Rosenthal is disagreeing with. The letters page, in its quiet way, published both sides. What's actually at stake here is a small but real question about how much ritual we're willing to carry in digital life. The efficiency argument for stripping formalities is obvious. The counter-argument — that these tiny acts of style are where personality, warmth, and social intelligence live — is harder to articulate but Rosenthal nails it. This is the letters page doing what it does best: taking a columnist's provocation and letting readers run with it in opposite directions, each sharpening the other's point. No algorithm would have surfaced this exchange. An editor did.
