Trouble with Multi-threading

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:57:50 +0000, Walter Hurry wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:21:32 -0500, dan.rose wrote:
> 
>> "PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or
>> privileged. It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of
>> conducting business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient,
>> please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete
>> the information from your system. Thank you for your cooperation."
> 
> Regretfully I am unable to delete the message from my Usenet provider's
> servers.
> 
> However, in accordance with your request I have expunged the body of
> your request so as to avoid disseminating it.

When did this forum become so intolerant of even the tiniest, most minor 
breaches of old-school tech etiquette? Have we really got nothing better 
to do than to go on the war path over such trivial issues? Out of five 
responses to the Original Poster's email, there was *one* helpful reply, 
followed by no fewer than four people playing "Stacks on the n00b" making 
the same comment about being unable to delete the message. I'm sure all 
four of you think you are ever such wits, but you're only half right.

Walter, you and I both know that such legal disclaimers are pointless and 
unenforceable. But you are guilty of misrepresenting what it says, and 
hence make yourself out to be a Grade A Dick. The disclaimer does not say 
"Everybody who receives this message must delete it from servers they 
don't control." That truly would display galactic-level stupidity. But it 
doesn't say that.

As a subscriber to the mailing list and/or newsgroup which Dan's message 
was sent to, you *are* an intended recipient. The disclaimer says that 
those who are *not* intended recipients should delete it from THEIR 
systems, not that those who *are* intended recipients should delete it 
from systems belonging to OTHERS. Duh.

As programmers, we should be able to correctly interpret the boolean 
logic in the disclaimer. Surely you know how to read, and interpret, a 
set of plain English functional requirements? 

- It doesn't say that the message "is" confidential, it says it *may* be, 
which is a correct statement regardless of the actual confidentially of 
the message.

- It doesn't demand that the message "must" be used only for certain 
purposes, but only that it *should* be so used -- again, a statement of 
intention which is correct.

- Lastly, it doesn't pretend to be able to compel the recipient into any 
particular action, but merely *requests* that they not be a dick about 
confidential or privileged emails which they receive by mistake. And even 
thanks them in advance for their (presumed) cooperation.

We shouldn't be giving a newcomer to this group a hard time over 
something which (1) he has little control over, (2) which isn't actually 
factually incorrect in any way, and (3) in the grand scheme of things 
isn't that bad a breach of etiquette.

I'm really getting cheesed off at the intolerance and nastiness being 
displayed on this list. I'm not aiming this specifically at you, Walter, 
you're not even close to one of the worst culprits. This isn't 
comp.lang.c, if you want a forum for arrogant elitists who look for any 
petty excuse to bash newcomers, take it elsewhere. I've been a regular 
here for over seven years, possibly longer, and the level of 
unpleasantness is at an all-time high, and the level of usefulness is 
lower than I've ever seen it before.



-- 
Steven