On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:57:50 +0000, Walter Hurry wrote: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:21:32 -0500, dan.rose wrote: > >> "PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or >> privileged. It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of >> conducting business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient, >> please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete >> the information from your system. Thank you for your cooperation." > > Regretfully I am unable to delete the message from my Usenet provider's > servers. > > However, in accordance with your request I have expunged the body of > your request so as to avoid disseminating it.
When did this forum become so intolerant of even the tiniest, most minor breaches of old-school tech etiquette? Have we really got nothing better to do than to go on the war path over such trivial issues? Out of five responses to the Original Poster's email, there was *one* helpful reply, followed by no fewer than four people playing "Stacks on the n00b" making the same comment about being unable to delete the message. I'm sure all four of you think you are ever such wits, but you're only half right. Walter, you and I both know that such legal disclaimers are pointless and unenforceable. But you are guilty of misrepresenting what it says, and hence make yourself out to be a Grade A Dick. The disclaimer does not say "Everybody who receives this message must delete it from servers they don't control." That truly would display galactic-level stupidity. But it doesn't say that. As a subscriber to the mailing list and/or newsgroup which Dan's message was sent to, you *are* an intended recipient. The disclaimer says that those who are *not* intended recipients should delete it from THEIR systems, not that those who *are* intended recipients should delete it from systems belonging to OTHERS. Duh. As programmers, we should be able to correctly interpret the boolean logic in the disclaimer. Surely you know how to read, and interpret, a set of plain English functional requirements? - It doesn't say that the message "is" confidential, it says it *may* be, which is a correct statement regardless of the actual confidentially of the message. - It doesn't demand that the message "must" be used only for certain purposes, but only that it *should* be so used -- again, a statement of intention which is correct. - Lastly, it doesn't pretend to be able to compel the recipient into any particular action, but merely *requests* that they not be a dick about confidential or privileged emails which they receive by mistake. And even thanks them in advance for their (presumed) cooperation. We shouldn't be giving a newcomer to this group a hard time over something which (1) he has little control over, (2) which isn't actually factually incorrect in any way, and (3) in the grand scheme of things isn't that bad a breach of etiquette. I'm really getting cheesed off at the intolerance and nastiness being displayed on this list. I'm not aiming this specifically at you, Walter, you're not even close to one of the worst culprits. This isn't comp.lang.c, if you want a forum for arrogant elitists who look for any petty excuse to bash newcomers, take it elsewhere. I've been a regular here for over seven years, possibly longer, and the level of unpleasantness is at an all-time high, and the level of usefulness is lower than I've ever seen it before. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
