SCO/Linux/Filepro consultant needed

[GCC Consulting]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial.com
>
[mailto:filepro-list-bounces+gccconsulting=comcast.net at lists.celestial.com]
On
> Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: filePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: SCO/Linux/Filepro consultant needed
> 
> >From inside the gravity well of a singularity, Seth A. Fischer, Esq.
> shouted:
> > This message may constitute attorney/client privilege and is intended
> > only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  This
message
> > may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
> > disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient,
> > or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the
> > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
> > distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited, and
> > you are requested to please notify us immediately by telephone (315)
> > 475-0000 and return the original message to us at the above address.
> 
> These always crack me up, once I actually got past the eyeroll factor and
> started to look at what they say carefully!  Who actually -writes- these
> inane boilerplates, and do they have even a remote grasp of elementary
> reasoning?
> 
> POINT OF LOGIC:  If it arrived in -my- inbox, it was obviously addressed
> to -me-, thus making me the entity to whom it was addressed.  (Duh.)
> Therefore, not my problem that someone can't address things properly, and
> I'd pretty much be free to do whatever I like with it.
> 
> It's really -not that hard- to use logic.  I'm amazed that so many
> "professionals" will let such flimsy logic go out their "office doors",
> as it were.
> 
> mark->
> --
> "I'm not subtle. I'm not pretty, and I'll piss off a lot of people along
> the way. But I'll get the job done" --Captain Matthew Gideon, "Crusade"


<ark,

Let's see, I hit reply and sent the message back to the sender.  I did what
they asked.

I still have the message they sent me.  Clear proof that I was an intended
recipient of the email.

I may not know who the other parties are; I may not know who the sender is,
but as you pointed out, it was addressed to me.

Now for the rest of the boiler plate, I don't know how legal it is to
disseminate a document once you have been notified.  Be interesting case
law.

Richard