Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!UOFT01.BITNET!ASPDMM From: ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Bud) Newsgroups: mod.legal Subject: (none) Message-ID: <8511010146.AA06191@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu> Date: Thu, 31-Oct-85 08:58:36 EST Article-I.D.: ucb-vax.8511010146.AA06191 Posted: Thu Oct 31 08:58:36 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 2-Nov-85 07:14:10 EST Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 28 Approved: info-law@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Arrgghh! What good are disclaimers? What's in a name? Would that which we call a rose by any other name.... Consider this. Any act, be it advice, directions, even ==> GASP <== a BBS, which might reasonably be expected to induce reliance, and which in fact does induce that reliance to the detriment of another, can be considered actionable in TORT. (does that sound familiar??) Of course, there is the unreasonable aversion of the ABA to allow folks to practice law without a license, so if you dispense advice too free- ly you may have them to deal with too. As to an implied disclaimer... take it to court if you feel up to it. As for me, I prefer that I and my clients note refer on such "parole" evidence. I relish an academic discussion of legal issues, especially as related to computer topics, since that is my vocation (can law be considered an Avocation??). But when that dicussion portends to go beyond the realm of idle banter, you didn't hear it from me. Now, I hope you'll pardon my proclivity to hyperbole, but you can't really advocate an unbridled dissemination of advice that might cause real damage if used improperly... can you? Of course this is just my opinion. Bud a/k/a David Massey ASPDMM@UOFT01