Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.

Wed Sep 9 17:29:36 UTC 2015

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 <dovid at 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 <larrysheldon at cox.net>
> Sender: "NANOG" <nanog-bounces at nanog.org>Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 03:56:30 
> To: <nanog at 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)