> S.K.'s going public was his way of warning 'us'. A warning would have been hollow if he'd not mentioned any name.

So far so good. But if there had been something to warn about then it would have been sufficient to state what's the matter. But that wouldn't have made much of an article, would it? "I sent a job application to Jzanus Ltd. and received a rather brief and arrogant reply by one M.M.".

Also, there is quite a difference between relating the gist of some communication as necessary (or paraphrasing) on one hand, and quoting it verbatim on the other. Same as taping conversations or phone calls without prior warning, which in some countries is even prohibited by law. Quoting letters/email in public is a rather drastic step and considered extremely rude unless there is an overriding concern. I guess it's a cultural difference.

So, if M.M. has worded his reply rather rudely then S.K. has acted rudely on three counts. First, by sending in an obviously frivolous application (he even posted subsequently that he never intended to accept the job on the terms stated because the job suited him as little as he suited it). Second, by posting a frivolous 'warning' when he had nothing to warn about. You know the saying about mud and slinging. Third, by quoting the email verbatim.

Classic case of pot and kettle.

I guess we all agree that M.M.'s manner and choice of words are deplorable regardless of circumstances but we don't know what elicited this reply. Without knowing the text of S.K.'s mail it is not possible to judge objectively the severity of M.M.'s failing. For all we know he just a very low threshold on his bullsh*t-o-meter.