Re: Richard Foote Disclaimer !!

"Nuno Souto" <nsouto_at_optushome.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:3d5b9df8$0$29911$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <uofc44u89.fsf_at_hotpop.com>, you said (and I quote):
> > On 14 Aug 2002, nsouto_at_optushome.com.au wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone getting upset because you harmlessly used an
> > > old e-mail addy IMO needs to get a life.
> >
> > Can you tell a mammoth organization to get a life? Didn't seem to work
> > in Howard's case.
> >
>
> I think if that was the case here as well, definitely Oracle Australia
> needs to be less anal. Like: piss off people's on-line life? None of
> their business to start with...

I think its a difficult one. It is hopefully self evident that what, for example I say, shouldn't especially reflect upon the Audit Commission (either positively or negatively). That isn't however as saying that what I say doesn't reflect at all upon the Audit Commission, of course it does - it still would of course even if I had one of those corporate disclaimers in my sig - to a greater or lesser extent my knowledge and skills are the product of my time with my employers. Thus although I would never have considered that Richard was speaking *for* Oracle it doesn't seem unreasonable to conclude that if a person has an Oracle.com email address they have the experience and inside info that you might expect of an Oracle employee.

I don't think that any of the above is especially controversial but so if even reasonable people might imply a link and assume knowledge based on knowing the employers of an individual just think what unreasonable people might do. <Irony> Especially as suing coporations doesn't hurt anyone </Irony>.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer

******************************************