Xref: utzoo comp.os.msdos.apps:2174 comp.windows.ms:13821
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!midway!gsbsun!valley
From: valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu (Doug Dougherty)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.apps,comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MS-DOS v5.0 Release Date 11th June
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.180650.19010@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 15 Jun 91 18:06:50 GMT
References: <gurganus.675797385@stable.ecn.purdue.edu> <1006@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <72798@microsoft.UUCP> <6669@gssc.UUCP> <72917@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress)
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 52

Note: This post has absolutely nothing to do with Windows, DOS 5.0, or
the IBM PC, and no doubt belongs in whatever the administration
conference (group) is for Usenet, but since I a) don't know what group
that would be and b) don't follow any such group, I am posting it here.
Be advised and assured that I know doing so is/was wrong...

Now, how's that for a caveat???  But wait, it gets better...

bobsc@microsoft.UUCP (Bob SCHMIDT) writes:

>  I am speaking on my own.  I should have stated such in my signature,
>  and aplogize for the confusion.  I have ammended my signoff to reflect
>  this.  I was not stating any official Microsoft position, but rather
>  simply confirming someone else's observation.  The "Microsoft"
>  in my signature lets readers know who/where I am; it does *not*
>  imply an endorsement of my words by MS.

>  As an employee of Microsoft Product Support, I am quite limited
>  in what I'm allowed to discuss in a non-confidential forum, such
>  as this.  Other parts of the company may enjoy more freedom; I don't.
>  When I post something to UseNet, even in a "non-official" capacity,
>  I have a sometimes ill-defined line I cannot cross.  Trust me, I
>  wish it were otherwise.

I've been reading these disclaimers for quite a while now, and after a
while they do get tiresome.  Does anyone really think they are necessary?
(I like the ones by people who are basically one man shops and they can
quite truthfully say that what they right does represent the views of
their organization/boss/whatever...)

I suggest two possible alternatives (to having to continually wade
through this drivel [nothing personal at all toward you, Bob.  I've been
thinking this for quite a while, and arbitrarily chose this occasion to
post; probably something about the current state of my body chemistry...])

	a) People cease putting their corporate affiliations in their
	signatures.  Then readers will never get the impression that
	authors are speaking for their companies.  This notion is
	consistent with the general fact that Usenet is a adamantly
	non-commercial entity, and people are *never* speaking for their
	companies here (except for the degenerate case mentioned above)
	(Contrast this with Compu$erve or GEnie, which are commercial
	entities, with company sponsored groups, etc)

	b) Failing this, can't we just change the default assumption to
	be that whatever is posted here does not represent anyone else's
	views or official positions (unless explicitly stated otherwise)

So?  Whaddya think?  Food for thought...
--

	(Another fine mess brought to you by valley@gsbsun.uchicago.edu)