> 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?
>
Too long to bear a grudge though...
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/
