View Single Post
Old 08-15-2013, 08:31 PM   #42
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,896
Karma: 33602910
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by speakingtohe View Post
Hmmm. Interesting point. The message seems to admit a certain fallibility in the senders distribution process.

Forbidding disclosure of something that was sent to you, with no other explanation or referral to a law or authority seems to me just plain silly.

Kind of like me saying to someone I forbid you to eat butter. Would make most people I know just eat more butter with a digit held up as they were doing it

Helen
This is a disclaimer that I've often encountered in mails from institutions, and at one place of employment we were supposed to have it as part of the signature.

But this is the kind of meaning that "privacy" holds to most of us. The postal worker might hold my postcard, but since he/she is not the recipient they won't make a copy of it and distribute it.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote