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 <do...@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 <larryshel...@cox.net> > Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-boun...@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)