[SGVLUG] This is at least tangentially Linux related

[Christopher Smith]

Thanks Miguel! If I need a party pooper I'll call you up first thing! ;-)

Seriously folks, the subject line was actually quite informative. It 
basically gave you every reason to think that the link was at best 
barely Linux related and almost certainly a waste of one's time, but 
perhaps amusing (and looking at the calendar might have given you a clue 
about the nature of the link). Instead, it turns out to be the gift that 
keeps on giving... at least until Miguel comes along!

If you look at the link, it clearly points to the Daily Telegraph, which 
should give you some notion as to the quality of the source. The best 
elements of it are video, so you *don't* want to look at it on dialup.

I am sorry if you find my contributions to the group lacking, but that 
is probably a good indication that you don't share my sense of humour 
and therefore won't enjoy the link in any way. So once again, everything 
worked out as best as it possible could. Folks who were likely to get 
something out of the experience likely did, and the rest were 
undoubtedly pleased at having a chance to be indignant in public. In the 
future, I recommend the latter group mark their calendars for 4/1 and 
generally ignore the Internet on that day, as it will be filled with 
time wasting content that is intended to be value free and funny, but 
probably not to them.

--Chris

P.S.: Miguel, in all seriousness. Thanks for trying to defend me.

Miguel Hernandez wrote:
> I think Chris didn't want to give too much info since it was, 
> apparently, an april fool's thang. =P
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Swantje <swantje at gmail.com 
> <mailto:swantje at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Even though I use a desktop computer with a mouse and fast internet
>     connection, I agree that an email that just consists of a link without
>     any (real) comment is like spam.
>     I might click it if I've seen you post often on the list and therefore
>     thought it may be safe and interesting, but most likely, I'd just
>     delete it.
>
>     On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:02 PM, David Lawyer <dave at lafn.org
>     <mailto:dave at lafn.org>> wrote:
>     > On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 12:31:23AM -0700, Christopher Smith wrote:
>     >  >
>     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/01/npenguin101.xml
>     >
>     >  Problem with the above post is that there is no real subject.  That
>     >  makes it like spam subjects.  I often read my email off-line (since
>     >  on-line time is limited at my ISP and it also ties up the phone
>     line)
>     >  so there is no way for me to "click" to see what the subject really
>     >  is.  If the real subject was included, either in the Subject
>     header or
>     >  in the body of the message, then if it looked interesting I
>     might dial
>     >  out and have a look at it, either right now or at a later time
>     when I
>     >  happened to be online.
>     >
>     >  Also, if one posts a url, then I think they should at least
>     state some
>     >  comments about it, going beyond just the subject title.  Since
>     I don't
>     >  use a mouse my "click" is actually a sequence of key strokes at
>     my dumb
>     >  terminal.
>     >
>     >                         David Lawyer
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>     --
>     "Small things done with great love will change the world."
>
>