In an article that ran on Thursday entitled “Computer Viruses Require Vigilance,” by Seth Davis, there is a paraphrase from Mr. Kevin Nolan essentially saying that “.pdf” files are rarely legitimate, and are likely virus candidates. This is an error that could lead to unreasonable student fear of these documents.

PDF stands for “Portable Document Format,” originally created by Adobe (of Adobe Acrobat fame) to facilitate viewing documents on all computers, whether they run Windows, Mac OS or UNIX. They are now universally used on the World Wide Web to allow all users of all systems to view, print and edit documents.

Saying that it is rare to find a legitimate “.pdf” file is simply a bald-faced lie. These files are the most common ones for any document usually found on the Internet. Every time your computer starts running “Acrobat Reader,” you are viewing a .pdf file. Even RamWeb uses a number of .pdf files, from class syllabi to course catalogues.

While .pdf files can be viruses in disguise, it is important to remember that any filename extension (the three letters after the period) can be a virus. To protect yourself, simply do not download files, web pages or pictures from any unknown source, and keep your anti-virus software up to date.

Jesse C. Owens

Freshman, open option

This in response to Stacy’s Schneider’s “Stupidity” article (Sept. 2):

First the facts on the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, which Stacy did not research. Stella Liebeck, 79, suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including the genital area and inner thighs. By its own corporate standards, McDonald’s sold coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Coffee hotter than 130 degrees can produce third-degree burns. McDonalds at the time produced documents showing more than 700 claims by customers burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000. McDonald’s countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer. Liebeck was then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages by a jury, the judge dropped it to $400,000 and the final figure, at McDonald’s request, will never be publicly published.

This case has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. Both the media and those who want to take away consumers’ legal rights overlooked the facts of the case, creating a “legal myth” or a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers.

The irony of this column is that Stacy appears to be the ignorant stupid one. Spilling a hot drink on your lap in a car driven by your grandson is not stupidity, it is an accident. Serving scalding hot coffee that has burned customers repeatedly without changing protocol is stupidity, and the agents involved should be held accountable.

Ed Lawson

senior Anthropology major

I am writing in response to Joe Marshall’s weekly column titled “To Put It Blunty” that runs every Thursday. I am a member of the “certain fraternity” that Joe mentioned as the “zero of the week” in his column.

Our Rush shirt does in fact have the slogan “We’re not cocky…we’re just better than you.”

Our fraternity chose to use this particular Rush slogan to create a sense of competitiveness among the fraternities in the Greek system at CSU. We did this because we believe that competitiveness causes people to strive to do better. So ultimately, take the slogan as a challenge from our fraternity to yours, to better your fraternity.

If a confident slogan such as ours bothers you, I suggest that you take a non-hypocritical look at the fraternity that you are a member of. When I was a freshman at CSU during the fall of 2000, I rushed your fraternity and was completely turned away by the rush slogan that adorned your fraternity’s rush shirts, which I will not mention because of the derogatory way women and “little sisters” were addressed. I am sure that you know which shirt I am talking about.

I commend you on mentioning that some of your shirts have been in poor taste before. But in defense of my fraternity, the “zero of the week” how you so eloquently put it, our Rush slogans have never violated our values and this semester’s specifically is mild in comparison to some that I have seen from other fraternities, including yours, Joe. But maybe that is why we are members of the fraternities that we are.

Shane Ferraro

Junior, journalism