On Sunday 25 August 2002 9:57 am, Alastair Scott wrote: <snip> > 99 times out of 100 the sender of the email has no way of avoiding the > disclaimer as it is tacked on by a mail server, usually the property of > a company trying to protect its back. (Such as my company; as, for > several months, its disclaimer contained a grammatical error despite > repeated requests to reword it I tried to send as little email from > there as possible!)
I blame the identified (see below) minority (fortunately there are still less of them than us :=>) for the disclaimer not the sender. The people that have to put up with that crap from work are usually the first ones to bitch about it. To their own organization and mail servers. "Blameless" works in this case, I was only identifying an irritant to me personally . :-) > > That said, 'an individual with severe intellectual challenges operating > from within an emotional void with no reality in view.' sounds like > 'lawyer' to me ;) I think so too. But I always thought that word was on the list of 'forbidden to use, especially on Sunday,' terms? It was; after all, a very carefully worded rant. ;) > > Alastair I still wonder why the random Fortune Cookies I get seem so "wildly appropriate" at times. LMAO I think my machine has an even more twisted sense of humour than I. -- Charlie Edmonton,AB,Canada Registered user 244963 at http://counter.li.org The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherman
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
