help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Find first line FOLLOWING a sequence of matches


From: Bob Proulx
Subject: Re: Find first line FOLLOWING a sequence of matches
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 15:17:30 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

Robert Thorpe wrote:
> I'm going to write one more message about this because this of off-topic
> for help-gnu-emacs.

Me too.

> Bob Proulx <address@hidden> writes:
> > Were you worried?  I wasn't worried.  I was annoyed by the clueless
> > and useless email disclaimer.  Those are such a waste of space.  We
> > shouldn't even be giving it any discussion time.
> >
> > If someone's company forces that upon their email then out of common
> > decency they should use different email when interacting with the
> > public outside of their company business.  There are many free email
> > providers available that won't abuse the users in that way.
> 
> Why?  It's just some more text to ignore.  It would make a bigger
> difference to me if people wrote simpler messages.

To be clear I responded to a message that included a disclaimer by
including a disclaimer of my own.  That was all I did.  One disclaimer
begot another disclaimer.  In the original if you found the disclaimer
ignorable then my response with another disclaimer should have been
equally worthy of being ignored.  Instead we have wasted much time
discussing the topic at more length than it deserves.

> > Here is one of many classic references on the topic.  There are many more.
> >
> >   
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20060218213021/http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/

I don't konw why I found the archive.org URL of that first.  I should
have linked to the current copy.  My bad.  I was trying not to spend
time on it.

> In that webpage the author quotes one source of law advice:
> weblaw.co.uk.  That site actually *recommends* using disclaimers and he
> quotes it:
> 
> # The value of disclaimers is limited, since the courts normally attach
> # more weight to the substantive content of the communication and the
> # circumstances in which it is made than to any disclaimer. Having said
> # that, disclaimers may possibly be helpful if an issue ends up in court
> # in various respects such as those described below and, since disclaimers
> # cost (almost) nothing, it is worthwhile to use them. Even though their
> # effectiveness in court is doubtful, they may provide a useful argument
> # in negotiations to resolve a dispute.

Yes.  I thought it was a good reference specifically because it did
include discussion on both sides of the issue.  However I think in
total the points against far outweigh the points for.

> > I disagree.  Clueless useless disclaimers such as those do harm the
> > community.  They are rude.  They are completely insane.  They consume
> > bandwidth and for those who pay metered bandwidth it does actually
> > cost them more money.  They consume diskspace and waste our time
> > avoiding reading them.  Think of the kittens!
> 
> In the modern world those are all very small problems.

I completely agree.  The problem is down at the level where I might
include my own disclaimer if I am already responding to the message.

> IANAL, but I don't think much of Cory Doctorow's disclaimer.  The
> disclaimer tries to limit my actions, it can't do that.

Agreed.  It can't.  That is what makes those so crazy.  And why the
annoy me.

> However, the disclaimer that Subhan quotes can.

No it can't.  Sorry but it just doesn't work that way.

> The message that Subhan sent is his copyright.  He can request you
> don't do things with his email.

No.  He can't.  He sent his message to a publicly archived mailing
list.  That message is forever part of the archives of the Internet.
And also I will note completely outside of any control of mine.  I
have no effect on the hundreds of email archives around the net.  It
was sent to me, and to hundreds of other recipients, without our
request or consent.  It matters not what disclaimer tries to restrict
this.  As a practical matter it has been done and it would be
extremely difficult to undo.

To actually delete messages one would need to break into hundreds of
computer systems across the world and delete the message from those
archives without the admins knowing.  (Which would itself be a crime.)
Because if they knew they would retrieve the deleted files from their
backups.  Unless you could also delete it from their backups too.
Very hard to do.

Or you would need to convince all of the hundreds to delete it
voluntarily.  The odds of doing that are vanishly small.  And it would
also bring into being the Streisand Effect previously noted.

> I don't use these disclaimers, but I understand why others do.

I understand why others use these too.  It is because they are
mistaken.  It is really just that simple.  (And I realize that in
reverse they believe that I am mistaken too.  It is a symetrical
relationship.)

> Let's say you're a salesman, for example, and you send a quote to a
> customer.  That customer decides to send the quote to a competitor
> of yours.  If you find that out, is there anything you can do?

If that salesman sent the quote to a publicly archived mailing list
with hundreds of recipients then there is absolutely nothing they can
do.  Disclaimer or not.

> In that case you'd probably have a better day in court if the email
> specifically said that the information in the message couldn't be
> copied.  At least that way the customer couldn't argue that you
> meant it to be circulated.

You are conflating public messages sent to a public mailing list with
some type of contractual communication between companies.  Those two
things are not related.  They are apples and oranges.

> I think your irritation is directed at the wrong people.  The real
> problem here is that the law should be different.

IANAL either but the law is already different.  We can agree to
disagree on that point.  It's okay.  Lawyers do it all of the time.
That is what lawyers do.

> For example, it would make more sense if a company employee does not
> "speak for" their employer.  Then things could be done the other way
> around, Spokesmen could put "This message relays an official policy
> of FooCorp".

Currently there is already the humorous situation of things like press
releases meant to be official statements which come with an attached
disclaimer saying that the email is not an official statement.  :-)

Bob



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]