RE: Request to remove Information
> From: Weissgerber, Tom L [mailto:tom.l.weissgerber@intel.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 10:43 AM
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org; Weissgerber, Tom L
> Subject: Request to remove Information
>
>
> Debian,
> The following information should not have been made available
> to the entire public domain. Please remove the following
> links/files at your earliest convenience.
> Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:57:42 -0700
> Message-id:
> <1B954E6DDFED0D41957388EB06FCB1D202CB9CC5@fmsmsx402.fm.intel.com>
> In-reply-to:
> <1B954E6DDFED0D41957388EB06FCB1D202CB9CC5@fmsmsx402.fm.intel.com>
> Message-id: <200309260552.13250.carla@bratgrrl.com>
> Old-return-path: <carla@bratgrrl.com>
> References:
> <1B954E6DDFED0D41957388EB06FCB1D202CB9CC5@fmsmsx402.fm.intel.com>
> Reply-to: carla@bratgrrl.com
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tom Weissgerber
> Intel Corporation
> Validation Tool Development Manager
> 916-356-5339
>
This is both funny and tragic at the same time. You post a private memo
that puts your employer in a very bad light to a high-traffic public
mailing list. In case anyone might wonder what you could do to top
something that dumb, you satisfy their curiosity by making a second post
to the same list requesting the first post be removed from the archives.
I understand that it is a little hard to talk with both feet in your
mouth, but maybe you could take one foot out for long enough to explain
your bizarre request?
What's interesting about this is why would Intel, as a company, be
concerned with removing a two-year-old memo from the public record? Was
Intel truly unaware in 2003 of the massive unpopularity of such greedy
behavior? Do they really think that by removing such small pieces from
the public record that they can deny their involvement with the massive
outsourcing binge of which their technology center in Bangalore was at
the forefront? This is really curious. Assuming this is something like
their motive, why would they send the same fool who did the damage in
the first place? Thank you, Tom, for being who you are. Without your
help, we might never have thought about this incident again.
--
Seth Goodman
Reply to: