Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

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)