Oops..sorry to follow up on myself (and before anybody says anything about this, sorry/not sorry for top-posting - it's on myself after all)..but I'd meant to include this:
Case in point: This very (original) thread, about Packetstream - if I had just posted the original thread, about how it's inducing users to violate their providers' ToS, how that's a breach of contract, etc... how many here would have a) not given a second thought, writing it off as the rantings of at best someone who doesn't know anything, and at worst a troll, or b) would have challenged me to explain my credentials - which would have take up far more space than my .sig :-( Anne > On Apr 26, 2019, at 2:55 PM, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitch...@isipp.com> > wrote: > > Apparently, after many, many years of using essentially the same .sig here, > it is now an issue of contention. (Well, 3 people probably does not > contention make, but still...). > > However, as one person decided I was trying to market myself, let me address > why I have all of that info in there: > > Primarily I leave in all of my background because people (at least those here > in the states) tend to a) assume that attorneys are all just "corporate > suits" with no understanding of or experience with deep Internet issues, and > b) attorneys are generally disliked. ;-) Over the years I've found that it's > best to include my chops right up front, so folks can be reassured that I'm > not only on the right (white hat) side of things, but that I actually do know > what I'm talking about. > > I can tell you absolutely that the pushback I get from people in our > industries who *don't* know my background, when I provide information based > on that background and my expertise, is far greater, and bordering at times > on abusive (come to think of it, not unlike some of the pushback I got when I > first arrived at MAPS, from a certain volunteer ;-)). > > I'm open to suggestions (other than the suggestion to sod off). > > Anne > > [This .sig space open to suggestions.] >
