On Thu, 2002-10-17 at 18:43, Jeff Waugh wrote: > Guys, please. This is not positive advocacy. You will not get what you want > by flaming and unfairly criticising the people who are simply trying to do > their job.
$Standard_just_following_orders_quote > It's also giving SLUG a bad name -> how can we promote the use and support > of Linux if we're seen as flaming zealots? I already feel the need to > apologise to St. George's support staff. Isn't this over-reacting, of the hundreds (thousands?) subscribed to this list one person CC's a non-existent address and suddenly the worry beads are out? Does SLUG now need to drop some legalese on each post stating that the comments expressed within are those of the individual and not all Linux users (world-wide) as a collective? These posts are cached on the web at various places and someone might stumble across one at random. Without this legalese they may assume it provides a detailed and in-depth analysis of the Linux community as a whole (They are probably also waiting for their billions to come out of Nigeria). On an personal note, by taking it upon yourself to apologize for John's actions you are dismissing his opinions and actions as less important then your own... > We don't have the advantage of height in this negotiation, so violence will Well, nearly everybody dislikes the banks, and a strongly worded letter/email is a far cry from violence. Cheers, Malcolm V. PS: Anyone in a customer support role who doesn't think part of their job is to act as a buffer between customers and management regarding unpopular company decisions is either naive or delusional. (Been there, done that, several times) -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
