OT: offensive officious litigous nonsense

[Brian K. White]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Doug Luurs" <doug at borisch.com>
To: "Jean-Pierre A. Radley" <appl at jpr.com>; "FilePro Mailing List" 
<filepro-list at lists.celestial.com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: OT: SCO Forum




> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> filepro-list-bounces+doug=borisch.com at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+doug=borisch.com at lists.celestial.
com] On Behalf Of Jean-Pierre A. Radley
> Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 11:47 PM
> To: FilePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: OT: SCO Forum
>
> Doug Luurs propounded (on Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 01:45:30PM -0400):
> | > Anyone planning to attend the SCO Forum this year ?
> |
> | <SNIP>
> |
> | The reason I asked this question to begin with, was to see
> if it would
> | be worth trying to get a fp group together and have a
> meet/fun in the
> | Evening sometime.
>
> There are already BOF sessions scheduled for the evening, but
> what the hey, stop me in the halls and we'll schedule something.
>
> | This E-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential
> | information and is intended solely for use by the
> individual to whom
> | it is addressed.  If you received this E-mail in error,
> please notify
> | the sender, do not disclose its contents to others, and
> delete it from
> | your system.  Any other use of this E-mail and/or attachments is
> | prohibited.  This message is not meant to constitute an electronic
> | signature or intent to contract electronically.
>
> OK, I have deleted it.  And I'm thrilled to pieces to learn
> that your message was in no way an attempt to electronically
> contract me!
>
> --
> JP
> ==> http://www.frappr.com/cusm <==
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
>

*LAUGHS* .. It's a Auto-added thing the Boss wants .. Sorry you don't
feel
Like doing bussiness with us .. We are really a nice bunch of people.

* Silly Exchange Server *

--------------

You should relay to the boss that this is the kind of reaction it generates.
I feel the same way just usually not quite enough to bother saying so, which 
is worse for you really. At least JP bothers to tell you.
If he thinks because you only ever see a response like JP's rarely, consider 
that for every one of JP there are possibly numerous others who feel the 
same, and don't feel they owe you the time of day it takes to tell you so. 
The reason I bother to say so now is, usually I assume the real end user 
such as yourself feels at least somewhat like I do. But now I get the 
impression that you have more of a problem with JP's reaction than with the 
the cause of it, and that I have more of a problem with.

When I receive an email from a public list like this, and it appears to have 
been sent deliberately not say by mistake, I consider it's contents public 
and am under no obligations at all regarding it's contents. When that email 
itself or by extension the author or sender tries to tell me otherwise, I 
feel exactly as JP does. The fact that these stupid things are common in no 
way makes them less offensive or more acceptable. The fact that a machine 
has been set up to tack the thing onto every outgoing mail and the real user 
didn't go out of their way to type it or add it is no excuse either except 
maybe the first time when you didn't know yet or the occasional 
accidentl/unintentional send from the wrong account.

You also can't say "Oh well, thats really just for certain private mails and 
obviously doesn't apply to something like this." You don't get to say things 
like "obviously" any more. By writing this legalese into the message you 
give up any right to assumed understanding, cooperation, good will and 
benefit of the doubt by not according the same to your recipients. The 
boilerplate doesn't say anything about exceptions so that means it tries to 
apply here as well. You can't have it both ways.

At least yours is less offensive than some I've seen but the problem is in 
kind not in quantity. I am bothered by any attempt, however small, to tell 
me what I must and must not do with anyting I received via public broadcast 
sent willingly by one who knew it would be broadcast.
If the work email accounts really must be so paranoid and protected, (hey 
it's anyones right to be as careful as they want), then perhaps they are 
simply not appropriate for use on public forums.

There must be a way to word a disclaimer so that casual emails can't be 
perverted into binding contracts or basis for other litigation without 
itself being the preemtive opening move in an offensive litigation inflicted 
upon all receivers without warning or request.

Maybe a non-offensive way to still cover ones rear is some sort of single 
public document that says all the legalese, that covers all the exceptions 
etc so it's not trying to apply in situations it has no right to, and the 
only thing you put in the actual mail is a single small one line link or 
reference to it. Like the way a software author can generally get away with 
simply saying "This is licenced under the GPL" or Berkely etc..

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!