Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch?
Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it because there may be others who actually are interested in my answers. Remind you why you hate legal? That sentence does not make any sense to me. I don't hate much, certainly not "legal", what ever that might turn out to mean, It's
just text at the bottom of your email.
That has been the answer of rogues and renegades to network messaging abuse since before there was an Internet. Now to try and answer "why does it bother me?" (There are already clues in what I have said above, but I am guessing that th4 OP is not into "clues" much.) I am old school and I still try, in an increasingly hostile world, to deal with electronic messages in the order of real time, with the oldest material at the top and the newest at the bottom. I am old school and still believe in not causing read-before-writes, not violating blocking-factor protocols, and not forcing people to pay for the transmission of bits they don't want, don't need, and did not ask for--especially if the bits are hostile and are carrying spam, viruses, trojans, or legal traps into which the receiver might innocently blunder. In the instant case it is this latter aspect that concerns me most as recipient--I did not ask for the message carrying it, I have no idea what about the message puts me at risk, and on and on through a number of arguments that others have covered well. I am old, unemployed, unemployable, in less than robust health, and I don't think I could survive being dragged into court because of something I did (or did not do) and I could not survive the expense of my defense and of the almost-certain adverse judgement the courts seem bound to hand down these days. And in the instant case (not always the case) the 11 1/2 word query struck me as ingenuous that would have been more appropriate in a high-school class*; and I looked elsewhere in the message to see if I could work out why somebody would ask that kind of a question in this kind of forum. *I am still undecided on that question. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
So far what I have learned 1) It causes issues reading bottom up (which I never do, I always go top down to review the convo) but I can how it bothers others. 2) You don't want lawyers saying "we had a warning, you violated it now we sue". Understandable. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, Dovid -----Original Message----- From: Larry Sheldon <larrysheldon@cox.net> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org>Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:22:14 To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it. On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote:
I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does it give you a nervous twitch?
Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it because there may be others who actually are interested in my answers. Remind you why you hate legal? That sentence does not make any sense to me. I don't hate much, certainly not "legal", what ever that might turn out to mean, It's
just text at the bottom of your email.
That has been the answer of rogues and renegades to network messaging abuse since before there was an Internet. Now to try and answer "why does it bother me?" (There are already clues in what I have said above, but I am guessing that th4 OP is not into "clues" much.) I am old school and I still try, in an increasingly hostile world, to deal with electronic messages in the order of real time, with the oldest material at the top and the newest at the bottom. I am old school and still believe in not causing read-before-writes, not violating blocking-factor protocols, and not forcing people to pay for the transmission of bits they don't want, don't need, and did not ask for--especially if the bits are hostile and are carrying spam, viruses, trojans, or legal traps into which the receiver might innocently blunder. In the instant case it is this latter aspect that concerns me most as recipient--I did not ask for the message carrying it, I have no idea what about the message puts me at risk, and on and on through a number of arguments that others have covered well. I am old, unemployed, unemployable, in less than robust health, and I don't think I could survive being dragged into court because of something I did (or did not do) and I could not survive the expense of my defense and of the almost-certain adverse judgement the courts seem bound to hand down these days. And in the instant case (not always the case) the 11 1/2 word query struck me as ingenuous that would have been more appropriate in a high-school class*; and I looked elsewhere in the message to see if I could work out why somebody would ask that kind of a question in this kind of forum. *I am still undecided on that question. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)
participants (2)
-
Dovid Bender -
Larry Sheldon