Cursive - Teach It Or Don't?

[The Free Joy State]

IIRC, I also had photo ID... this really was quite a long time ago.

Also, it's not that easy to perfectly and quickly forge a signature with someone watching you.

*looks around*

I believe.

It's true though. Forged signatures are partly detected through hesitations, pen lifts and breaks, because you make your own signature quickly and smoothly, without thinking about it.

Yeah, no. Most of the population essentially never signs anything, so their signatures are written exactly how someone forging it would, and you don't need to forge it perfectly, because basically nobody can consistently reproduce their own signature.

It's not about identical reproduction. It's about the automatic movement. It's more detectable under photocopy.

And even people who type all the time have to sign things sometimes.

[Salandriagado]

Yeah, no. Most of the population essentially never signs anything, so their signatures are written exactly how someone forging it would, and you don't need to forge it perfectly, because basically nobody can consistently reproduce their own signature.

It's not about identical reproduction. It's about the automatic movement. It's more detectable under photocopy.

99.999% of signatures will never been seen by an expert.

And even people who type all the time have to sign things.

Just not true. I think in the last decade I've signed... two cheques, and nothing else? Yeah, I think that's accurate.

[The Free Joy State]

It's not about identical reproduction. It's about the automatic movement. It's more detectable under photocopy.

99.999% of signatures will never been seen by an expert.

And even people who type all the time have to sign things.

Just not true. I think in the last decade I've signed... two cheques, and nothing else? Yeah, I think that's accurate.

I type daily. Except for the occasional note, I hardly write anything. I've signed a handful of forms and cheques over the years, and my signature is still automatic. I don't need to take laborious care, with pen breaks and hesitations.

Everyone's different.

[Salandriagado]

99.999% of signatures will never been seen by an expert.



Just not true. I think in the last decade I've signed... two cheques, and nothing else? Yeah, I think that's accurate.

I type daily. Except for the occasional note, I hardly write anything. I've signed a handful of forms and cheques over the years, and my signature is still automatic. I don't need to take laborious care.

That's nice for you. It doesn't generalise. Also, signatures are, in general, similar enough that you can just sign your own damned signature and have it pass for just about anybody else's.

[The Free Joy State]

I type daily. Except for the occasional note, I hardly write anything. I've signed a handful of forms and cheques over the years, and my signature is still automatic. I don't need to take laborious care.

That's nice for you. It doesn't generalise. Also, signatures are, in general, similar enough that you can just sign your own damned signature and have it pass for just about anybody else's.

That's not been my observation, but you clearly have different experiences. Everyone I've ever met (whose signatures I've seen) has substantially different signatures to me and vice versa.

That's not to say they are like snowflakes or thumbprints, but if they were completely indistinguisable, signatures would never have been accepted in civil or criminal courtrooms at all.

[Grenartia]

I can't even write consistently with those electronic pens, so that's a useless way of 'confirming' somebody's identity. We should be using biometrics instead.

I do agree about the electronic pens and screens. No-one can write a real signature on them. It just comes out as squiggle.

To clarify, I was not actually making an argument that signatures are the same as photo ID. I was talking about a specific instance where they were formerly used -- to see that it matched.

Although (while a signature is not the same as ID) if everyone signed paper documents with a squiggle, forgery would be made a lot easier.

I mean, really, that's all writing in cursive is, writing on paper with a squiggle.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I do agree about the electronic pens and screens. No-one can write a real signature on them. It just comes out as squiggle.

To clarify, I was not actually making an argument that signatures are the same as photo ID. I was talking about a specific instance where they were formerly used -- to see that it matched.

Although (while a signature is not the same as ID) if everyone signed paper documents with a squiggle, forgery would be made a lot easier.

I mean, really, that's all writing in cursive is, writing on paper with a squiggle.

Cursive is just fancy squiggling.

[Grenartia]

I mean, really, that's all writing in cursive is, writing on paper with a squiggle.

Cursive is just fancy squiggling.

Precisely my point.

[The Sancioned]

[proposal=][/proposal]
[region-tag=][/region-tag]

Cursive should notr be mandatory in my nation because, printed is a lot easier to read.

[Salandriagado]

That's nice for you. It doesn't generalise. Also, signatures are, in general, similar enough that you can just sign your own damned signature and have it pass for just about anybody else's.

That's not been my observation, but you clearly have different experiences. Everyone I've ever met (whose signatures I've seen) has substantially different signatures to me and vice versa. [/quote

It doesn't matter. You only need to replicate the signature as well as the people who are worst at replicating their own signatures. For reference, that's extremely bad.

That's not to say they are like snowflakes or thumbprints, but if they were completely indistinguisable, signatures would never have been accepted in civil or criminal courtrooms at all.

They aren't accepted as proof of who did something. They're accepted as proof that whoever did a thing didn't do it by accident. Indeed, they never have been: if you go back in time far enough that people actually used such things as verification, anybody who had anything important to write had a signet ring, or seal, or something like that, precisely because they're harder to forge.

[The Free Joy State]

That's not been my observation, but you clearly have different experiences. Everyone I've ever met (whose signatures I've seen) has substantially different signatures to me and vice versa.

It doesn't matter. You only need to replicate the signature as well as the people who are worst at replicating their own signatures. For reference, that's extremely bad.

To summarise: you stated that all signatures would pass for just about anybody else's. I stated that that is not my experience.

Now, if I'm correctly following this sentence, it's extremely bad -- worse according to you -- for all signatures to be different (and to some measure unique) than for them all to be the same?

It's logic Jim, but not as we know it.

Fixed the quotes; I'd be grateful if you'd fix yours' too

That's not to say they are like snowflakes or thumbprints, but if they were completely indistinguisable, signatures would never have been accepted in civil or criminal courtrooms at all.

They aren't accepted as proof of who did something. They're accepted as proof that whoever did a thing didn't do it by accident. Indeed, they never have been: if you go back in time far enough that people actually used such things as verification, anybody who had anything important to write had a signet ring, or seal, or something like that, precisely because they're harder to forge.

A handwriting expert can also be called as supporting proof that someone did not do something, such as strengthening evidence for suspected forgery (as in a will). Although testimony will also be sought, and signatures are not the sole means of proof they are accepted as supporting evidence.

EDIT: Anyway, this will be my last response on signatures. I doubt there's more to say that hasn't been said and I've already expressed my opinion on cursive handwriting in schools. As long as children can write legibly, I don't really care whether they're taught cursive or not. If debit/credit cards -- all things for which a signature was formerly required -- go to being thumbprint-activated/other uncopiable-thing-activated, that works for me too.

[Nettunia]

Actually, I'm faster with print than cursive.

A matter of habit I'd say. My own writing style has evolved to be a mix of cursive and print for no particular reason. But objectively speaking cursive is faster because the pen stays on the paper for longer periods, with less strokes needed. I know we're splitting straws at this point, but such was the topic!

Anyway, I don't really care that much xD

[Helensburgh]

It's efficient and I can read my own cursive, but to others it's sometimes not legible. I had a teacher who was obsessive about it, at around the time I was made to improve my handwriting (it did not really improve lol), so I use it as a default, which is not great. But Cursive (along with my own shorthand) is great for my own studying. So it's a double-edged sword for me.

[Katganistan]

I say don't teach it, on the grounds that little to no one, if ever, uses cursive in day-to-day life

You mean few people use it?
Little to no one makes no grammatical sense.

"Little ever uses cursive."

[Katganistan]

Opinion 3:

Honestly, I like using cursive....but does anyone remember how to do an upper-case 'Z' in cursive?

Yup.

[Page]

Honestly, I like using cursive....but does anyone remember how to do an upper-case 'Z' in cursive?

I'm going to guess before googling it - I kind of remember it looking like a 3.

*googles it*

Yeah I basically remembered it right.

[Katganistan]

Well, signatures don't have to be cursive, they don't even have to be your own name. All that matters is that it's unique.

Not even that. A signature is literally just a confirmation that you didn't do something by accident. It isn't ID in any way.

Explain that to a cashier in a department store if you try to use an unsigned card.

Or when I go to vote, and they compare my signature this year against my signature last year in their records.

It is used as a form of ID.

[Grenartia]

Not even that. A signature is literally just a confirmation that you didn't do something by accident. It isn't ID in any way.

Explain that to a cashier in a department store if you try to use an unsigned card.

Or when I go to vote, and they compare my signature this year against my signature last year in their records.

It is used as a form of ID.

Well, its stupid, and they need to switch to biometrics.

[Salandriagado]

Not even that. A signature is literally just a confirmation that you didn't do something by accident. It isn't ID in any way.

Explain that to a cashier in a department store if you try to use an unsigned card.

I do so. Every week. It has never, ever been a problem. And it never will be.

Or when I go to vote, and they compare my signature this year against my signature last year in their records.

The US government is silly, then.

It is used as a form of ID.

Not by anybody who cares about... anything.

[Salandriagado]

Explain that to a cashier in a department store if you try to use an unsigned card.

Or when I go to vote, and they compare my signature this year against my signature last year in their records.

It is used as a form of ID.

Well, its stupid, and they need to switch to biometrics.

Biometrics are also stupid: a password that you can't change is a disaster.

[Grenartia]

Well, its stupid, and they need to switch to biometrics.

Biometrics are also stupid: a password that you can't change is a disaster.

Switch to a different finger, then.