From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Robert Thorpe Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Find first line FOLLOWING a sequence of matches Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 19:41:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87bni5bgqw.fsf@robertthorpeconsulting.com> References: <20150429235008806153877@bob.proulx.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430419355 8651 80.91.229.3 (30 Apr 2015 18:42:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:42:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Bob Proulx Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 30 20:42:24 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YntPg-0004aG-9m for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 20:42:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45389 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YntPf-00057j-Ou for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:42:19 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YntPU-00055s-00 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:42:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YntPP-0002JQ-Jx for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:42:07 -0400 Original-Received: from outbound-smtp06.blacknight.com ([81.17.249.39]:41589) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YntPP-0002J9-EH for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 14:42:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.blacknight.com (pemlinmail06.blacknight.ie [81.17.255.152]) by outbound-smtp06.blacknight.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31D1798F4F for ; Thu, 30 Apr 2015 18:42:01 +0000 (UTC) Original-Received: (qmail 17171 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2015 18:42:01 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO RTLaptop) (rt@robertthorpeconsulting.com@[109.78.201.16]) by 81.17.254.9 with ESMTPSA (DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 30 Apr 2015 18:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20150429235008806153877@bob.proulx.com> (message from Bob Proulx on Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:37:32 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 81.17.249.39 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:104104 Archived-At: I'm going to write one more message about this because this of off-topic for help-gnu-emacs. Bob Proulx writes: > Were you worried? I wasn't worried. I was annoyed by the clueless > and useless email disclaimer. Those are such a waste of space. We > shouldn't even be giving it any discussion time. > > If someone's company forces that upon their email then out of common > decency they should use different email when interacting with the > public outside of their company business. There are many free email > providers available that won't abuse the users in that way. Why? It's just some more text to ignore. It would make a bigger difference to me if people wrote simpler messages. > Here is one of many classic references on the topic. There are many more. > > http://web.archive.org/web/20060218213021/http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ In that webpage the author quotes one source of law advice: weblaw.co.uk. That site actually *recommends* using disclaimers and he quotes it: # The value of disclaimers is limited, since the courts normally attach # more weight to the substantive content of the communication and the # circumstances in which it is made than to any disclaimer. Having said # that, disclaimers may possibly be helpful if an issue ends up in court # in various respects such as those described below and, since disclaimers # cost (almost) nothing, it is worthwhile to use them. Even though their # effectiveness in court is doubtful, they may provide a useful argument # in negotiations to resolve a dispute. > I disagree. Clueless useless disclaimers such as those do harm the > community. They are rude. They are completely insane. They consume > bandwidth and for those who pay metered bandwidth it does actually > cost them more money. They consume diskspace and waste our time > avoiding reading them. Think of the kittens! In the modern world those are all very small problems. IANAL, but I don't think much of Cory Doctorow's disclaimer. The disclaimer tries to limit my actions, it can't do that. However, the disclaimer that Subhan quotes can. The message that Subhan sent is his copyright. He can request you don't do things with his email. I don't use these disclaimers, but I understand why others do. Let's say you're a salesman, for example, and you send a quote to a customer. That customer decides to send the quote to a competitor of yours. If you find that out, is there anything you can do? In that case you'd probably have a better day in court if the email specifically said that the information in the message couldn't be copied. At least that way the customer couldn't argue that you meant it to be circulated. I think your irritation is directed at the wrong people. The real problem here is that the law should be different. For example, it would make more sense if a company employee does not "speak for" their employer. Then things could be done the other way around, Spokesmen could put "This message relays an official policy of FooCorp". BR, Robert Thorpe