Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!timeinc!dave From: dave@timeinc.UUCP (David Mutterer) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: RE: apology Message-ID: <52@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 12:05:55 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.52 Posted: Tue Oct 16 12:05:55 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 06:31:56 EDT References: <59@cadre.UUCP>, <1580@nsc.UUCP> Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 32 >> Is there anyone on the >> net stupid enough to believe that articles posted by >> people are officially being posted by the employer, >> or that the employee can speak for the employer? >Well, lawyers for one... I don't like them either, but in some cases I'm >sure the alternative is no posting at all. Some places have been burnt by >amazingly silly lawsuits and like to protect themselves. And there are >always paranoids.... Well, how about common knowledge law... if the majority of users make it clear that the traffic on the net is considered to be PERSONAL views and no one should believes that the messages represent the views of the company (unless of course the article states so..!) then it should be possible to convince the management that instead of posting disclaimers on EVERY article, that only articles the specifically says "This articles respresents the views of this company" should be taken "seriously".. Now if we get enough responces to this series of articles, then we can all take them to managment and say "read these"... WARNING: until further notice (thats why I am fighting also) below is our company's "required" disclaimer....YUK!! -- David Mutterer [vax135|ihnp4]!timeinc!dave "Any opinions expressed herein are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Time Incorporated."