Andy Smith wrote:
> Just making clear that nothing I do or say is in any way
> representing Jacqui Caren. Apparently there was some confusion at
> some point that I did speak on behalf of Jacqui Caren.
Ok, well I for one missed all that. Head in a book or server or something
and has since been decommissioned:-) Was useful for work in the end.
> If you have access to the subscriber-only mail archive before it was
> made public then you will find it here:
>
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/private/hants/2006-June/057420.html
I see the thread, don't really get the argument in it, however these
things are always more intense at the time I guess:-/
>> I mention this, perhaps naively, as new and existing members may fear
>> that
>> the same will happen to them if they voice an opinion that has led to
>> this
>> odd signature...
>
> It is possible, yes, if people suggest that I am in some way
> speaking on their behalf. I must say however, that this hasn't been
> a problem before or since.
>
You weren't standing up for Jacqui or backing her up on any particular
point at the time.
Ok, well it kinda makes sense, just thought I'd ask:) where's the aspirin?
Damian
--
Damian Brasher
www.diap.org.uk "Aiming to protect mission critical data: 'You can't afford
to lose...'"
All mail scanned by clam-av
http://www.clamav.net/
