On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 14:21, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
On Friday 05 March 2004 4:53 pm, fkamp@comcast.net wrote:
HEY !!! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
Look at the subject title.
That tells me it is either spam or pure B.S.
No, I have not seen it and I don't want to see it.
What I found irksome -- and inexplicable -- about the original posting was that it consisted of a link with no description of what was to be found at the end of the link. The actual article was fairly interesting -- about some evidence that Microsoft has been funneling funds to SCO in order to cause legal problems for Linux -- but I still felt put upon that I wasn't given any information that would tell me if I wanted to pursue the link.
Yes, probably had a number just delete it not knowing... Probably got sent out without much thought into the subject line or contents, its pretty nasty evidence that would tip a lot of fence sitters into really disliking MSFT, if they wanted more proof that the company is rotten.
It is an antisocial practice to post links without any description of what they link to. Is there anyone here -- anyone at all -- who can offer even a shred of defense for the practice? Whether the subject is off-topic or not is a separate question.
Its just an e-mail, who cares really...Yes it would be have been better to offer a shred of information, but would not go as far as anti-social, just may have been too hasty. This thread imho, is making a mole hole hill out of an ant hill...A gentle correction in not being so hasty with links or subject lines would be fine, even better off list. People can get defensive, especially in public. Matt