[clue-talk] Linked In CLUE Group?

[Nate Duehr]

Jed S. Baer wrote:

> Oh, okay. I consider you a friend. How about I refer you to a number of
> "services" I'm sure you'll like.

LOL... then we wouldn't remain friends for very long.  :-)

> Irrespective of that, any company operating a networking site ought to be
> clueful enough to learn and understand correct netiquette. LinkedIn has
> shown themselves to be uncaring about that.

Not saying it covers their "sins", but that service seems to do more 
good than evil.  I suppose someone who needs medication for erections 
feels that those spammers are doing something non-evil too, but there's 
a vast difference between the two.

> And no, I'm not really operating under any illusions here. I do realize
> that the rules of netiquette are slowly (or rapidly) being abandoned, and
> not just by pond-scum spammers. The vast majority of net users these days
> not only have no clue, but have no clue about that which they have no
> clue. I've had real-life encounters with people who, if I mentioned some
> simple aspects of netiquette, would just give me a blank stare.

You're lamenting that the computer industry has sold computers to people 
without teaching them anything about them.  Perhaps it's time to have 
computer users licensed, just like cars?

> None of which stops me from holding forth on occassion, when I think it's
> warranted. ;-)

LOL!  You know I'll rant about my favorites at the drop of a hat, too... 
no big deal, it's all in good fun.

> And if someone wants to create a "People using GNU/Linux" group on some
> social networking site, hey, go ahead, if that's what turns your crank.
> But don't call it "CLUE", and don't harvest addresses from the mailing
> lists and provide them directly to that site.

One could get into whether or not the name "CLUE" is trademarked and 
copyrighted here... if one were really evil and wanted to do it.  What 
would stop there from being two "CLUE" organizations?  Is this one 
strong enough to take on the legal battle?

(Obviously I'm not interested in such antics, but just making the point 
that names of really loose organizations often have little legal 
protection.  I think CLUE is in better shape, but only those who really 
run the organization would know for sure.  I haven't paid attention to 
such things, nor do I really care.  It's just an example.)

Nate