In my case, I resent the idea that some lawyer somewhere thought I could somehow be bound to an agreement I never agreed to which does not appear to me until I have reached the end of an email on which he/she feels I should be bound. It’s an absurd construct. It’s a waste of bits that could be used for good purpose such as discussing why we all dislike lawyers so much. It’s a display of arrogance and it’s presumptuous. In short, it’s an offensive behavior. The fact that it is a corporate policy only makes it more offensive. Owen
On Sep 9, 2015, at 06:36 , Dovid Bender <dovid@telecurve.com> wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch? Remind you why you hate legal? It's just text at the bottom of your email.
Regards,
Dovid
-----Original Message----- From: Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
On 9/8/2015 03:31, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 09:14:02PM +0000, Connor Wilkins wrote:
Honestly.. the best method is to not let it bug you anymore. It's only a seething issue to you because you let it be.
Curiously enough, the same thing was said about spam 30-ish years ago. The "ignore it and maybe it will go away" approach did not yield satisfactory results.
These "disclaimers" are stupid and abusive. They have no place in *any* email traffic, and most certainly not in a professional forum. And it is unreasonable to expect the recipients of the demands and threats they embody to silently tolerate them ad infinitum.
Exactly so. JHD
-- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)