good after noon sir

[Matthew Kuiken]

Harry L. Lee wrote:
> I expected my reply to go only to the author of the original phishing 
> message. my apologies for offending everyone's gentle sensibilities. 
> perhaps the censors should spend more time on actual content than being 
> 4 letter cops. I personally find phishing offensive if not illegal.

I don't appreciate being called a four letter cop.  What I was 
responding to was an inappropriate response to a list email which I felt 
was egregious enough to warrant a request for politeness.

I especially come to this opinion as the original email was not 
phishing.  Phishing, as has been pointed out elsewhere in the thread, is 
about tricking someone into revealing personal information.  Whatever 
else it might be, the original email was not that.  At worst it may have 
been spam.  At best, it may have been a new subscriber that started an 
email, and accidentally hit send before they were done.  This latter 
example is why I felt your comment required response.

>     Matthew Flaschen wrote:
>      > Matthew Kuiken wrote:
>      >
>      >> Harry L. Lee wrote:
>      >>
>      >>> <censored for rude content>
>      >>>
>      >> #1, Please follow the code of conduct:
>      >> http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct
>      >>
>      >> #2, what about the original email prompted this comment????
>      >>
>      >
>      > Probably the fact that it had nothing except a name and bad
>     punctuation.
>      >  I suspect it is spam, but Harry was still quite rude.

It may have been spam, but most spam actually makes more sense than the 
original email.  I suspect an accidental sending of a just started email 
above most of the other choices.  I have had several late night emails 
that have looked similar after a line or two...  I hate to think what it 
would look like if I accidentally sent one of those.

-Matt Kuiken