I think it depends on if you are already aware of the existence and purpose of the hackaday web site. Having had one of my projects published there I am aware of the site and wouldn't hesitate to click that link. On the other hand, if I wasn't aware of the hackaday site I might think differently, the word "hackaday" also has unsavoury connotations to some, so an explanation would have been helpful... .. lastly the latest bunch of malware I have seen post realistic looking documents with real phone numbers from real people, horrible....
Dave Wade G4UGM > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jay West > Sent: 30 May 2016 04:47 > To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: RE: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st- > century/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed% > 3A+hackaday%2FLgoM+%28Hack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+ > view > > Top posting because.... > > It takes two (at least) to start it, and you certainly played your part. > > While it is not "forbidden" to just post a URL without any explanation, it would > be a good idea to include something with it so that we know if we want to click > on it or not. Otherwise, it's going to just be skipped by a lot of people that > might have had an interest but weren't interested in going there blindly. > > Regardless of if one agrees with fred or not, I think he stated his concerns > without being rude. Let's keep the namecalling and rudeness out of it. > > Nuff said. > > J > > -----Original Message----- > From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of wulfman > Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:55 PM > To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk@classiccmp.org> > Subject: Re: > http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st- > century/?utm > _source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hackaday > %2FLgoM+%28H > ack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view > > I did not start the fire. > > > On 5/29/2016 6:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: > > On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote: > >> You either have a stick up your ass, are too stupid to know the > >> difference between a malware link and a real link OR both. > >> Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain > >> malware. > > > > I'm glad to hear it. > > > > OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it. > > But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad that you > > have that perception of it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use > of the named > addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any > unauthorized use, copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e- > mail is strictly prohibited by the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the > intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. >
