to have feelings about @?

[ChaosTrulyReigns]

The little curly critter seems to be creeping its way into conversations on here.

I'm not sure whether anti-snail evolution is required, or whether shrugs and an acceptance of evolution of language is the way forward?

It just doesn't seem to scan right, or even really make sense to me but perhaps I am just a poster of little brain.

AIBU to ponder?

I'm not clicking Tee.

[wise]

I much prefer using bold font to address people on MN, but do use @ on the Guardian forums as it seems to be the convention there - no-one seems to get offended by the @, just occasionally the contents.

I like calling it a snail, should come with its own gralic butter though.

YANBU. I've been questioning my own feelings on @ and concluded I'm quite a traditionalist. It's a bit txtspk for me.

Chaos if you hover over a link the bottom left of your screen will tell you where it goes.

For example this link goes to bit.ly/r40pib.

:o

I did click on the link supplied by Tee in trepidation, DD is sitting beside me. It has a really good little history of the @ symbol, although I have to say I am sceptical of the monk story TBH.
Thanks to the person who explained it with the at each bit too.

Fucking Trills.

"Trust me, I'm a doctor."

Never again.

[disappointed]

Did I tell you to trust me?

I promise this is not the bat

When you do things like that Trills, you're not just letting yourself down, you're letting us down, and you're letting Mumsnet down.

Mumsnet at its worst (TM)

It really is a history of the @! I swear it!

And, historically, ::talks to self:: is correct as were and are used in code.

It is, it's a history of @, I clicked it because I am not afraid of clicking.

whats with the bat..?

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!!!!! omg... terry wo wo wogans eeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!

™

How do you like those apples?

¢

Bollux.

"The symbol developed as a mercantile shorthand symbol of "each at"?the symbol resembling a small "a" inside a small "e"?to distinguish it from the different "at" (symbolized by the mere letter "a") or "per." For example, the cost of "12 apples @ $1" would be $12, whereas the cost of "12 apples at $1" would be $1?a crucial and necessary distinction" (From Wikipedia)

This is one theory of the original usage of @ in the UK - and the one I have always understood to be correct.
Certainly, I have mostly seen it used (in catalogues, invoices and the like) without a subsequent "each", in other words, the word "each" is redundant because it is included in the symbol. if you don't like the terminology "each at", then instead, say "at the rate of" - but "each at" and the small a inside the e makes the most sense in commercial terms.

Not sure I believe the monk thing either, but it's an interesting theory at least!

I was trying to find out why it was chosen for email addresses but can't seem to find anything on that.

The monk theory doesn't hold water because it is very difficult to do an upstroke using a quill pen, and virtually impossible to do an upstroke that curls around to the left.

"at" would have been written in four strokes, as would "@".

Completely agree that we talk to or with people, talking at people is rude.