NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/unix/sysv386/12405

Text File | 1992-07-25 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!torn!utzoo!telly!druid!darcy
From: [e-mail] (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Subject: Re: Dell SVR$ (and Dell hardware) total lack of success on P
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:55:39 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: D'Arcy Cain Consulting
Lines: 26

[e-mail] (Dave Kirsch) writes:
>In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (D'Arcy J.M.
>Cain) writes:
>> [e-mail] (Graham Wheeler) writes:
>> >folks ;-) - with Donn effectively running Dell's net.PR, I don't see a very
>> Is that your opinion or Aztec's.  Perhaps you shouldn't post until you
>But in another message, Donn said:
>> ... your complaint is unjustified.  We're familiar with your problem - even
> [...]
>Now, I see a lot of 'we' there.  When I see a person posting from a company and
>using the term 'we' to refer to the company, I think it's safe to assume he's
>speaking _for_ the company.  If he said, "Dell has no obligation" rather than
>'we', then it can be viewed differently.

Sorry, unless Dell says that he is speaking for Dell then he is speaking
for himself.  If someone had said something like "I think our policy on
<something> sucks!" would you assume that he was speaking for the company?

Let's not make the suits any more nervous than they already are about
letting employees have access to Usenet from company systems.

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain ([e-mail])  |
D'Arcy Cain Consulting              |   There's no government
Toronto, Ontario, Canada            |   like no government!
[phone]          DoD#0082   |